Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

WALSALL CORPORATION BILL

Lords Amendments agreed to.

WEST BROMWICH CORPORATION BILL

Lords Amendments agreed to.

WOLVERHAMPTON CORPORATION BILL

Lords Amendments agreed to.

DEATH OF A MEMBER

Mr. Speaker: I regret to have to inform the House of the death of Emrys Hughes, esquire, Member for South Ayrshire, and I desire, on behalf of the House, to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the hon. Member.

Oral Answers to Questions — OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

Overseas Aid and Development Programme

Mr. Judd: asked the Minister of Overseas Development what will be the gross and estimated net cost of the British Overseas Aid and Development Programme in 1970–71 and 1971–72; and what will be its estimated effect on the balance of payments.

The Minister of Overseas Development (Mrs. Judith Hart): The planned programme for 1970–71 remains £235 million gross, and repayments of £28·million

are due. Within this total the special aid to Malaysia and Singapore is likely to include some defence aid. We are not yet in a position to give figures for 1971–72.
The balance of payments cost of a marginal addition to the programme has been estimated at about one third or rather more where there is pressure on the capacity of industries producing aid-financed exports.

Mr. Judd: Would my right hon. Friend and the Parliamentary Secretary accept congratulations from those interested in aid and development on their appointment, and will they be prepared for the pressure which will certainly come in achieving a fulfilment of the targets we know they individually subscribe to? Would my right hon. Friend agree that the result of the international aid and development programme is highly positive in terms of our balance of payments? Is it not high time that the British people were told in categorical terms that our future well-being depends on the expansion and continuation of this programme?

Mrs. Hart: I and my hon. Friend are grateful for the good wishes of my hon. Friend. We shall both welcome his pressure. In looking forward to the future there can be nothing but long-term advantage to us in doing the maximum to promote development, simply in terms of the increase in world trade which then has its effect on us.

Mr. Judd: asked the Minister of Overseas Development whether credits for arms sales abroad will in future be included as part of the British Overseas Aid and Development Programme.

Mrs. Hart: They have never formed part of the official aid programme, and they no longer count as private flows against the U.N.C.T.A.D. 1 per cent. target.

Mr. Judd: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that, within the international classification, these credits have been included and that it is most unfortunate that they should be counted towards fulfilment of aid targets?

Mrs. Hart: I agree. My hon. Friend had a Question down on this subject in


July. He will be glad to know that it is as a result of a recent agreement of members of D.A.C. since then, that new arrangements have been made and they will no longer count as part of the programme.

Aid for Development

Mr. Biffen: asked the Minister of Overseas Development what is the extent of the aggregate private investment, bilateral portfolio investment, multilateral portfolio investment and export credit contribution to the aid figure of $845 million for the United Kingdom during 1968 and tabulated in her Department's Aid for Development fact sheet in July. 1969.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Overseas Development (Mr. Ben Whitaker): $326 million is the latest estimate, bringing the total down to $754 million.

Mr. Biffen: Do not these figures show quite clearly that free enterprise can play a major rôle in advancing the capital requirements of developing countries? In those circumstances, is it not highly regrettable that Governments such as those of India and Zambia show such hostility to United Kingdom private investments?

Mr. Whitaker: The Government have always encouraged private investment as being complementary to the official aid programme, and that will continue to be our policy.

Pearson Commission (Report)

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Minister of Overseas Development what plans she has for ensuring that the proposals of the Pearson Report on aid to under-developed countries are implemented by Her Majesty's Government; and if she will make a statement on plans for the next five years.

Mr. Barnes: asked the Minister of Overseas Development by what year the official British Government aid budget will reach 0·7 per cent. of gross national product recommended in the report of the Pearson Commission.

Sir G. Sinclair: asked the Minister of Overseas Development in view of the fall in the proportion of the gross

national product provided for official overseas aid from 0·53 in 1964 to 0·42 in 1968, what steps the Government will take to reach the targets for official aid set by the Pearson Commission.

Mrs. Hart: The publication of the Pearson Report was immediately welcomed by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. The Report's recommendations are addressed to developed and developing countries and to all organisations concerned with development. They are now under study here. We fully accept the need to continue the collective development effort, and we intend to play our part in this.

Mr. Hamilton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the welcome given by the Government to the Pearson Commission's Report is very gratifying? Is she further aware that the Government ought to match that with specific figures and targets? Will she give an assurance that she will take fully into account, as a member of the National Executive of the Labour Party, the conference decision on this matter which was, near enough, the recommendation of the Pearson Commission?

Mrs. Hart: I can assure my hon. Friend that it is clear to me that we must now make a fresh assessment of the contribution Britain can make to the world programme of aid and development in the 1970s. We have had quite a good record in the past. With the new challenges presented to us on many fronts in everyday life, I myself regard it as essential that we considerably improve our performance in real terms in the 1970s.

Mr. Barnes: Would my right hon. Friend agree that this is an area in which it is appropriate to speak of the moral obligations of countries like Britain? Could she tell us something of her philosophy towards the question of overseas aid?

Mrs. Hart: If I can condense it in the course of answering a supplementary question, the moral commitment of any developed nation is probably the greatest commitment which it has in any field.

Sir G. Sinclair: While welcoming the Minister's appointment, may I ask whether she would be more specific about


the proportion of our gross national product which the Government are prepared to devote next year to official development aid in view of the gradual decline of the proportion of the gross national product in recent years?

Mrs. Hart: We have the Pearson Report before us, and we have the new U.N.C.T.A.D. target to consider and the Second Development Decade coming up. Clearly all these maters must be considered quite urgently by the Government, but the assessment is bound to take a little time.

Mr. Braine: May I take this opportunity of congratulating the right hon. Lady on her appointment and of saying at the same time that the House genuinely regrets the departure of her predecessor who always treated us with the utmost courtesy and frankness? Since the Prime Minister has described the Pearson Report as one of the most important documents of the twentieth century, and since the Government's contribution to aid has fallen far short of expectations given us in 1964–65, will the right hon. Lady translate what she has just said into effective action? Can she give an assurance that the study will be completed before Christmas and that an announcement of the Government's intentions on this subject will be made before Christmas?

Mrs. Hart: The proportion of the gross national product will have to be considered in relation to our future estimates of the gross national product, which, as the hon. Gentleman knows, are not published. But the figures for expenditure in 1971–72, which is one of the matters about which the hon. Gentleman is concerned, will be in the White Paper in December.

Mr. Higgins: asked the Minister of Overseas Development whether she has reached any preliminary conclusions regarding the scheme of the Pearson Commission on international development for untying aid with a zero balance of payments effect.

Mrs. Hart: The Commission did not itself quite propose such a scheme. Its recommendations on this point call for further study in consultation with other aid providing countries and we shall

certainly be glad to consider this more carefully.

Mr. Higgins: Would the right hon. Lady agree that the Government's performance in the aid programme is rather worse than it looks in the sense that the nominal value of aid far exceeds the real value because of tying arrangements? Therefore, will she give particular attention to this matter? She said just now that the Government do not forecast the gross national product. Why does she think that?

Mrs. Hart: The Chancellor of the Exchequer makes assumptions in relation to the rate of growth which he foresees ahead, but it is not the practice to publish estimates of the gross national product for the years ahead. We are anxious to move in the context of international discussions on the Pearson proposals and we shall want to continue to work towards the direction recommended; but it must be done in the international context.

Aid

Mr. Braine: asked the Minister of Overseas Development in which of the years 1965 to 1968, inclusive, there was a drop in disbursements of official aid net of interest payments and amortization, in official aid expressed as a percentage of the gross national product, and in the real value of official aid expressed in terms of 1965 prices.

Mrs. Hart: The figures for 1967 and 1968 declined in all these respects from those for 1966.

Mr. Braine: Is not this a most savage indictment of the Government's policy? Who was responsible for advising the Prime Minister to make his boastful speech at Polesden Lacey on 14th September in which he said that aid had never ben cut when in fact it has?

Mrs. Hart: I am sorry to have to engage the hon. Gentleman in rather fierce argument across the Floor of the House at such an early stage, but it was never cut. What happened in 1966 was that there was a lowering of the rate of growth in the planned programme. Hon. Members know perfectly well the difference between a cut in a programme and a


lessening of the rate of growth in a growing programme. I strongly urge the hon. Gentleman to consider how good the record has been in terms of the balance of payments problem which we have had to deal with and which we are now on the way to solving.

Mr. Braine: asked the Minister of Overseas Development by how much she estimates the percentge of British gross National product devoted to official aid will decline in the calendar years 1969 and 1970, respecively.

Mrs. Hart: Percentage figures are not available but gross disbursements of economic aid are expected to amount to £214·4 million in 1969 and £224·3 million in 1970. This compares with £202·8 million outturn in 1968.

Mr. Braine: Is the right hon. Lady aware—let us get this clear from the start—that net aid as a percentage of the gross national product has declined steadily since 1964 and that the figures which she has given, even if fully achieved, would at best keep aid as a percentage of the gross national product at the same level at last year? Is she further aware that if, as usual, disbursements fall short of the published ceilings, official aid will probably fall short of 0·4 per cent. of the gross national product for the first time since 1958? Is that why the right hon. Lady predecessor resigned?

Mrs. Hart: If the hon. Gentleman is saying that he hopes that we can do better on aid in the 1970s than we have done in the last five years, I will wholly agree with him and I shall look forward to his assistance in reaching a better target. But if he is saying that we should have done better in the last five years, despite the balance of payments problem which we have had to deal with, then I shall have to take him to task.

Mr. William Hamilton: Would my right hon. Friend agree that the hypocritical noises of the Opposition are coming from a party which is constantly advocating decreases in public expenditure?

Mrs. Hart: Indeed—and at the same time making taxation proposals which run completely counter to all their other proposals.

Nigeria (Pensioners)

Sir G. Sinclair: asked the Minister of Overseas Development, in view of the continuing delays in the transmission to pensions in Great Britain of pensions paid by the Nigerian Government to bank accounts in Nigeria, what representations she proposes to make on behalf of the pensioners.

Mr. Whitaker: We have already approached the Nigerian authorities, through the British High Commission in Lagos, about a number of pensioners of whose difficulties I am aware.

Sir G. Sinclair: But when may we expect some reassurance to those pensioners whose payments are being grossly delayed?

Mr. Whitaker: I shall be very glad to consider any cases of hardship which the hon. Gentleman cares to take up with me. But he can be reassured that any pensioner can apply at any time to receive payment through the Nigerian High Commission in London, which would cut out all the delay and exchange control problems.

International Development Association

Mr. Higgins: asked the Minister of Overseas Development whether she will take steps designed to improve negotiating procedures for the replenishment of the International Development Association.

Mrs. Hart: The President of the Association, Mr. McNamara, has already made proposals designed to ensure that the next replenishment can be settled in enough time to allow the Association to enter new commitments from the middle of 1971, and we support these proposals.

Mr. Higgins: Could the right hon. Lady say what she thinks is the absolute deadline for replenishment? Does she intend to urge that the next programme will cover five years rather than the very short period which was covered on the previous occasion?

Mrs. Hart: The proposals of Mr. McNamara are that there should be agreement, if possible, by the end of


June, 1970, so that the necessary legislation can be introduced and enacted by the end of June, 1971. The first payments would then become payable in November, 1971. As the hon. Gentleman will know, the difficulty on the last occasion was caused by delays in legislation. We shall certainly seek to fulfil the McNamara proposal.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOCIAL SERVICES

Pension Proposals

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what has been the result of his negotiations on the subject of abatement with the representatives of the pensions funds in connection with his proposed legislation.

The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Richard Crossman): I hope to make a statement and lay a White Paper on this subject early next month.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is it not becoming increasingly clear that a scheme of the nature of the right hon. Gentleman's scheme is very difficult to reconcile with healthy and expanding occupational schemes? Would he give an assurance that if this turns out to be the case he will amend his scheme so as to secure that occupational schemes are not prejudiced?

Mr. Crossman: It is true that the conversations which I have had with the representatives of the occupational schemes have taken longer than I expected, hence the delay in the statement. But I see no reason to believe that we shall not come to a satisfactory conclusion.

Mr. Lipton: Would my right hon. Friend say a word or two about the N.A.L.G.O. campaign in this respect, which seems to be based upon a variegated assortment of misunderstandings and misconceptions?

Mr. Crossman: I would not contradict a word of what my hon. Friend said, but there is a later Question referring to this matter.

Mr. Dean: Does the Minister realise that it would be very foolhardy to proceed with a line of policy which has had very substantial criticism from the representatives of over 12 million pensioners

and members of pensions schemes in this country?

Mr. Crossman: The striking thing is that the scheme has emerged with extraordinarily little criticisms. The only discussion has centred on the precise terms of abatement and not on the nature of the scheme.

Mr. Fortescue: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether in his costing of the National Superannuation and Social Insurance Plan outlined in Command Paper No. 3883 he has taken into account the cost of paying increased pensions to existing pensioners; and what he estimates this cost would be in 1972, 1982, and 1992.

The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Mr. David Ennals): It is not possible to estimate the cost of future increases. Command Paper No. 3883 proposes that increases in excess of inflation proofing should be a matter for the Government of the day. The estimates in the White Paper are, however, based on constant earnings and, therefore, give a realistic indication of the relative progress of income and outgo if benefits moved in line with earnings.

Mr. Fortescue: In the light of that reply, does not the statement by the Secretary of State on 23rd July, in which he estimated the cost of an alternative scheme put up by the National Association of Pension Funds, seem to the Minister to be somewhat misleading, if not perhaps untruthful? In the light of an earlier reply by the Secretary of State this afternoon, may I assure the Minister that for many of us on this side the fractional adjustments in abatement conditions are for from being the only controversial feature of the pension plan and that he may expect strenuous opposition to the plan as a whole?

Mr. Ennals: In reply to the last point, we look forward to a highly intelligent debate on the scheme as a whole. What my right hon. Friend was saying was that most of the attention of the public has been concentrated on these aspects—namely, the terms of abatement. When my right hon. Friend was involved in a discussion with the National Association of Pension Funds, he said how difficult it was to make projections into the future, but he said that if certain assumptions


could be made certain figures could be produced. What one cannot at the moment say is what those assumptions would be.

Mr. Dean: Does the Minister of State recollect that the White Paper already makes clear that an increase in contributions will amount to over 30s. for many women, to nearly £1 for many men and to an average of 5s.? Is it not clear that these very high figures are already inadequate?

Mr. Ennals: No, that is by no means true. The White Paper also made clear that in the case of low-paid workers, on present rates they would pay less rather than more and that in 1972 we will have to compare the level of contributions with what would in any event have been a necessary increase in contributions in order simply to maintain our present scheme to cover the vastly increased number of pensioners as well as to increase the level of pensions.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what reply he has given to the representations of the National Association of Local Government Officers about the effect on the pensions provisions of local government officers of his proposed pensions scheme.

Mr. Crossman: I have assured them that fears that the Government have designs on their occupational pension funds are totally devoid of foundation. I have reminded them that the new State scheme is designed to work in partnership with occupational pension schemes; and I have pointed out the valuable extra benefit cover the new State scheme will bring for the Association's members and their families, and the easement of the contribution burden on the lower paid among them.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the assurance, however, that it is not his intention to cut back or to diminish in any way the pensions or pension rights enjoyed as a condition of their employment by local government officers under their present scheme?

Mr. Crossman: Yes, I think I can say that we are not concerned to cut them back in any way. We are putting into

force a new pensions scheme, which is for the first time an adequate earnings-related scheme. Such a scheme when in force will require adaptation by the other schemes which are in force—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—the right hon. Gentleman has known about it all the way through. What we are now discussing is the degree of partial contracting out which we can allow which will reduce the necessity for adaptation.

Mr. Robert Howarth: Is my right hon. Friend actually in negotiation with unions such as N.A.L.G.O., or is it a matter of the union making representations and of him replying by letter? Will he assure us that he is actually talking with N.A.L.G.O. in detail about these modifications?

Mr. Crossman: I seem to have talked to a great many N.A.L.G.O. branches throughout the country during the last few months but we have, between us, had three meetings with representatives of the N.A.L.G.O. executive. My main discussions have had to take place on a larger scale with the T.U.C., the C.B.I., the National Association of Pension Funds, the Life Offices and such big groups, because one cannot talk to every one of the 65,000 pension schemes concerned.

Mr. Dean: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise what a very disturbing answer he has given to my right hon. Friend? The question asked, if I may repeat it, was: can he give an assurance that the pension rights of members of the N.A.L.G.O. scheme will not be cut back or diminished in any way?

Mr. Crossman: I was asked whether I would cut them back, and I said that would not cut them back. [Interruption.] If I am asked whether or not, when the new scheme is in effect and the new terms of abatement are worked out, every one of the 65,000 schemes will remain totally unadapted, the answer is "No." Clearly, most of them will have to adapt to the new circumstances. The question I was asked was precisely how they will adapt.

Mr. Dean: Will the right hon. Gentleman then say how many people who are members of these schemes at present are likely to find their pension rights cut back?

Mr. Crossman: None of this can be discussed sensibly until we announce the new ratio between pension abatement and contribution abatement. When that has been seen, each scheme can judge what is involved and what contribution it will pay. It can then decide how to adapt to our scheme. It is clear that a number of schemes will not adapt at all but will be on top of our scheme. A number of schemes may even decide that ours is good enough and they will give up. In my view, the vast majority will adapt themselves to our scheme and together provide greatly improved benefits for their members.

Mr. Dean: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what steps he is taking to revise his pension proposals, in view of the substantial criticisms sent to him by organisations representing large numbers of members of occupational and public services pension schemes.

Mr. Crossman: I do not accept the implication in the Question and I would ask the hon. Member to await the presentation of the Bill early in the new Session.

Mr. Dean: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that earlier he failed to give an assurance that the pension rights of members of occupational pension schemes will not be eroded by the new State scheme and that his answer will cause profound disquiet amongst a large number of people who are members of such schemes and could do real damage to savings?

Mr. Crossman: That would depend on whether they had read the White Paper. I said that every scheme would have to consider how best to adapt itself to the Government's scheme. That adaptation would not include existing pension rights, which in no respectable occupational scheme can be eroded. What we are considering here is the future, not existing pension rights.

Mr. Molloy: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the members of occupational schemes are entitled to see that their interests are safeguraded? At the same time, would he underline that the fundamental feature of this scheme is to provide reasonable security of pensions for millions of people who will not be

entitled to them unless the scheme becomes an Act?

Mr. Crossman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He is quite right. Not only we on this side, but right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite should consider it a duty to strike a fair balance between the needs of those in occupational pension schemes and those in the Government's scheme. Inevitably, that balance will be based on very complicated calculations and assessments.

Sickness and Unemployment Benefit

Mr. Fortescue: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will now publish the results of his investigation into the large increases in the financial year 1968–69 in the cost of sickness benefit and unemployment benefit.

Mr. Ennals: So far as sickness benefit is concerned, the hon. Member will no doubt understand that a careful study of the many factors involved must take time; and it is too early to make a statement. Unemployment benefit is a rather different question and was dealt with in my reply to the hon. Gentleman's Question of 7th July.—[Vol. 786, c. 922–31.]

Mr. Fortescue: The Minister is being very coy about this investigation. Could he tell the House whether the investigations made so far and of which he has reports have revealed that there is any grave amount of abuse of social security benefits in these two fields?

Mr. Ennals: I have no reason to believe that there is any grave degree of abuse. It would not, however, be right to start making generalised assumptions until we have the whole survey. Many questions are involved, including questions of sickness in a particular year, questions of epidemics and so on. I assure the hon. Member that the survey is being carried out and that at a certain stage we will fully inform the House of our conclusions.

Mr. Heffer: It is not clear to my hon. Friend and to the House that the reason we are paying out more is that the Government introduced better benefits, both in unemployment and sickness? Is it not also clear that if we followed the policies of hon. Members opposite, there would be cuts in public expenditure which lead to


cuts in these benefits, which help the ordinary people?

Mr. Ennals: I very much agree with the concern expressed by my hon. Friend at the conclusion of his question. There are, of course, a number of reasons for the increase in cost; as my hon. Friend has said, the amount of benefit is higher. It is also true, however, that there is a greater degree of long-term sickness among people who a generation ago might well have died but who, as a result of the Health Service, are continuing to live. That is a very important part of it.

Strikers (Supplementary Benefit Payments)

Mr. Gresham Cooke: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how much was paid out in total and per head by way of supplementary benefits to those on strike and those thrown out of work in the recent South Wales blast-furnacemen's strike.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Department of Health and Social Security (Mr. Brian O'Malley): About 3,300 supplementary benefit payments totalling approximately £22,300 were made to the dependants of strikers in the South Wales blast-furnacemen's dispute, an average payment of £6 15s. In addition, just under 50 payments totalling £107 were made to relieve urgent need among single strikers. 97 payments totalling about £330 were made during the dispute to men and their families laid off by the Steel Company of Wales as a result of the strike.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Does not this emphasise how tremendously expensive are these strikes to the national Exchequer? This is in addition to the port strike, where hundreds of thousands of pounds were paid out, and the Vauxhall, Ellesmere Port, strike where, equally, hundreds of thousands of pounds were paid out to people on strike and to those who were affected, with apparently no regard to whether refunds were coming back.

Mr. O'Malley: Of course strikes are expensive to the nation as a whole, but the hon. Gentleman should bear in mind that, compared with supplementary benefits of £22,300, on a conservative estimate the workers themselves lost about

£165,000 in wages, and roughly 50 per cent. of the strikers in this long dispute, which went on for almost two months, made no claim for supplementary benefit.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether, in making payments by way of supplementary benefits to those on strike, any account is taken of income tax refunds to strikers which are being received at the same time.

Mr. Ennals: Yes, Sir. Income tax refunds received by strikers are taken into account in assessing the supplementary benefit entitlement of their dependants to the extent that these refunds, together with any other personal income which the striker may have, exceed the amount of the striker's own personal requirements by supplementary benefit standards.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: As we have just heard in the previous reply, an average of about £6 was paid out in supplementary benefits to strikers and those affected by the strike. Is not it true that in a great many strikes no regard has been had to whether strikers were getting refunds and that, for instance, refunds of up to £20 are payable to people affected by strikes who are also getting supplementary benefits?

Mr. Ennals: No, it is not true, as I said in answer to the hon. Gentleman's Question. In any case, the procedure which he is now questioning is one that has been carried out for the last 20 years by successive Administrations, including the one which the hon. Gentleman supported.

Supplementary Benefits Scheme

Mr. Hunt: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what additional steps he is taking to check abuses of the Supplementary Benefits Scheme.

Mr. Crossman: Various methods are employed to check abuse of the Supplementary Benefits Scheme and they have been extended and intensified over the last year or so. The Commission and I are satisfied that generally speaking these measures are working well. I am, however, still discussing with the Commission whether there are any additional measures which would be appropriate, effective and practicable.

Mr. Hunt: I welcome that rather vague reply, so far as it goes, but have not recent Press articles by an official of the Supplementary Benefits Commission revealed a most alarming degree of fraud and deception? Is the Minister satisfied that the steps he now contemplates will be rigorous enough to discover and to stamp out these abuses, which are of concern to the great majority of ordinary, decent, hard-working people?

Mr. Crossman: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, if he is referring to the article in the Spectator, it did not indicate the extent of the abuse. It merely illustrated the abuses which we all know. The difficult question is the extent of the abuse and how much effect we have against it. We have done a lot. To take one figure, on enforcement of maintenance allowances our rate of recovery is £6 million as compared with £5 million last year. In the four-week control of single men under 45, last year we were successful in seeing that 80,000 went back to work. These are solid achievements.

Mr. Paget: Is not the principal abuse of the scheme the inadequacy of the claims made, in that far too many people are ignorant of what they are entitled to? Should not an attempt be made to inform people of their entitlement under the scheme?

Mr. Crossman: I should not have thought that the cause of abuse was properly analysed in that way. It may well be said that more people should know accurately what they are entitled to, and we are publishing more information on that subject next spring. I think that the abuse, which is serious and which is very limited, is done by people who know only too well what they are entitled to and who try to get something more. That, of course, we want to eradicate.

Supplementary Benefit (Household Removal Expenses)

Mr. Mapp: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will seek to amend the law so that capital resources of less than £325 are not taken into account when reasonable household removal expenses are incurred by an aged widow who is rehoused because of infirmity by a local authority.

Mr. Ennals: No, Sir. Under the Ministry of Social Security Act it is specifically left to the Supplementary Benefits Commission to decide what account should be taken of resources disregarded for purposes of weekly benefit when calculating exceptional lump sum payments—such as removal expenses. Their normal practice is to ensure that the claimant is left with £100 capital intact but they consider it reasonable to expect people with more capital than this to meet non-recurring needs out of it.

Mr. Mapp: Is the Minister aware that the old-age pensioner of 74, who lives by herself, who has been rehoused because of her infirmity and who has capital of only £247, is now having to pay removal expenses of £15? Is this the sort of generosity we in this age can offer? Can we not do something to assist her?

Mr. Ennals: I am aware that my hon. Friend has written about this particular case. It raises problems and we are looking at the matter. The Chairman of the Supplementary Benefits Commission will reply to my hon. Friend. But I must point out that this is a matter which is at the discretion of the Commission and cannot simply be decided by reference to Acts of Parliament.

Children's Allowance

Mr. Mapp: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the administrative machinery within the children's allowance arrangements to ensure that such allowances are transferred to the children's appointed guardians arising from court decisions and so advised to the Department by children's or probation officers.

Mr. Ennals: A parent who complies with the appropriate maintenance and other conditions is entitled to family allowances. Any other person having care of the children can qualify for these allowances only if the parents are not entitled to them.

Mr. Mapp: Is my hon. Friend aware of the case of a guardian of four children, a case which was fully reported upon in March by a probation officer, and also referred to in a letter which I wrote in May, in which in July the Ministry decided that the guardian who maintains


the four children is not entitled to the children's allowance for three of the children?

Mr. Ennals: This again is a particular case raised by my hon. Friend. It is being looked at and I will give it my sympathetic consideration. The terms of the Family Allowancs Act lay down that, unless certain conditions apply, the money should be available for the parents, but where those conditions do not apply then the family allowances are made available to the family looking after the children concerned.

Mr. Mapp: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I intend to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

Strikers (Supplementary Benefits)

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what has been the aggregate cost to date of payments of supplementary benefit made to the families of dustmen on strike; and what has been the average payment per family.

Mr. O'Malley: Up to Tuesday, 14th October—the latest date for which figures are available—951 payments totalling nearly £4,800, an average of just over £5, had been made for the dependants of strikers.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Is it not adding insult to injury to expect citizens who have been gravely inconvenienced by the strike to have to subsidise its prolongation? In view of the accumulating evidence of the abuse of the supplementary benefits system, is it not time that the whole principle of paying supplementary benefits to the families of men on strike was reviewed?

Mr. O'Malley: I would remind the hon. Gentleman that, even in the days of the old Poor Law, the wives and families of strikers were given assistance. If the hon. Gentleman suggests that the way to deal with strikes of this kind is to get at workers by depriving their wives and families of benefits, I utterly reject that philosophy.

Mr. Winnick: Is it the intention of the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends that strikers and their families should

starve to death? Is not my hon. Friend sick and tired of constant Tory baiting of people who are not rich?

Mr. O'Malley: My hon. Friend is right, because that is precisely what the hon. Gentleman was suggesting.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Since supplementary benefits are not paid under the P.A.Y.E. code, will the Minister arrange that these benefits are caught up and charged to income tax so that they pay tax on them?

Mr. O'Malley: My hon. Friend the Minister of State, in reply to an earlier Question, has stated that there is a partial regard of income tax refunds which strikers receive. Concerning the making of arrangements for recovery of supplementary benefits, the administrative costs of doing so would be disproportionate to the amount received, particularly because there would no doubt have to be provision for abandoning recovery where hardship might otherwise occur.

Oral Answers to Questions — HEALTH

Prescription Charges

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services to what extent the introduction of prescription charges has brought about a decline in the number of prescriptions combined with an increase in the cost; and what is his estimate of the administrative cost of the reintroduction to date.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Department of Health and Social Security (Dr. John Dunwoody): From 1st July, 1968, to 31st May, 1969, the number of prescriptions dispensed by chemists in England was 9 per cent. less than in the corresponding period 12 months earlier. During the same period, total cost increased by about ½ per cent. compared with increases of 9 per cent. and 5 per cent. in the corresponding periods in 1966 and 1967. Introductory administrative costs for the 12 months ended 30th June, 1969, are estimated at about £610,000 and a further £790,000 was spent on extra payments to chemists.

Mr. Jenkins: Does not everything that my hon. Friend has said illustrate that the scheme has been a total failure and should be dropped, not merely from the


point of view that it is totally undesirable as far as the electorate is concerned, as my hon. Friend himself in a previous incarnation pointed out before his conversion and appearance on the Front Bench, on which I congratulate him? Incidentally, will my hon. Friend also reply to the question in the sense that it was regarded at one time as of sufficient importance to bring about the resignation of members of the Government?

Dr. Dunwoody: When considering the figures which I have given for the administration and reintroduction of the scheme, one has to bear in mind the amount of money which has been raised. The total saving is of the order of £25 million, of which £16 million or £17 million represents actual income from the charges.

Family Planning Association (Grant)

Mr. Fisher: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a large Government grant available to the Family Planning Association, with a view to extending advice on contraception more widely throughout all sections of the community.

Mr. Crossman: As I told the House in reply to a Question from the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Huntingdon (Sir D. Renton) on 19th May last, I have, with the hon. Member's object in mind, made a grant of £20,000 a year for five years to the Association for the training of doctors and others.—[Vol. 784, c. 30–1.]

Mr. Fisher: I do not call that a very large grant. On the principle of prevention being better than cure, would it not be wise and, indeed, less expensive to spend more money in giving advice on contraception with a view to spending less money on abortions?

Mr. Crossman: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman does not think that it is a substantial grant. Twenty thousand pounds a year for five years to a relatively small organisation is something which it could reasonably spend in largely and rapidly expanding its training system. I agree in principle with what the hon. Member has said.

Mr. Lubbock: Why not make the Family Planning Act mandatory instead of discretionary.

Mr. Crossman: That is something which, clearly, I should very much like to do, but it is no good making the Act mandatory upon local authorities unless one simultaneously supplies them with sufficient money to implement it. I will not conceal from the hon. Member that the present state of the rate support grant would make it somewhat difficult to bring it into effect.

Medicines Commission

Mr. Fisher: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will announce the composition of the Medicines Commission.

Mr. Crossman: I hope to be able to do so shortly.

Mr. Fisher: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it has taken an extraordinarily long time to set up the Commission—I think, over a year? Can he say how soon it will be in operation, when the expert committees will be appointed and when we can expect the regulations arising out of the Act?

Mr. Crossman: I would accept the adjective "extraordinary". It is extraordinary, but there has been an extraordinarily complicated series of consultations. I did not know that one had to consult so many people about one committee. However, the consultations have been completed. I think that I shall be able to issue some of the invitations in the next week or two and that in late November or early December we will be able to have the first meeting of the Commission. It has, however, taken an unconscionably long time to get it done.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: Can the Secretary of State give any information about the regulations under the Act, to which my hon. Friend referred?

Mr. Crossman: If I can be given a specific Question, I can answer it.

Mr. Macmillan: My hon. Friend asked whether the Secretary of State had any idea when the regulations under the Act would be forthcoming.

Mr. Crossman: When the regulations come into effect will depend partly upon how speedily the Commission gets going, but I hope that immediately we get the


Commission actually functioning, we will get the regulations as well.

Dentists, Greater London (Weighting Allowance)

Mr. Hunt: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what consultations have taken place between his Department and the dental profession regarding the payment of a weighting allowance for general practitioners in the Greater London Area.

Mr. Crossman: None recently.

Mr. Hunt: Although the Minister is not at the moment directly involved, does not he agree that, in view of the exceptionally heavy expenses which are incurred by dentists in the London area, there is a very strong case for the payment of a special allowance along the lines of that paid to civil servants and members of other professions who work in London as opposed to other parts of the country?

Mr. Crossman: As almost half the general dental practitioners in England and Wales practise in London and the home counties, I cannot believe that many find it financially disadvantageous to do so.

Dental Decay (Sodium Fluoride)

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will give an assurance that it is his policy that those who suffer from dental decay are to be treated as separate and individual patients and not by the administration of sodium fluoride to the entire community.

Mr. Crossman: Adjustment of the natural fluoride content of water to the recommended level of 1 part per million is a safe and effective way of reducing the incidence of dental decay and I strongly support it. Treatment is a different matter and my policy there is to ensure that individuals who suffer from dental decay should be able to obtain under the National Health Service whatever dental treatment may be necessary to restore dental health.

Mr. Rankin: Could my right hon. Friend tell me the purpose of compelling those who have no teeth and those who have dentures to drink fluoridated water in order to save the teeth of the younger

generation, who can be dealt with in other ways?

Mr. Crossman: Contrary to what my hon. Friend has said, I feel that the two minorities he has mentioned should suffer a little—if it is suffering—for the sake of the overwhelming majority and enable us all to have the privilege of those who live in The Hartlepools and Colchester where the level in the drinking water is at the correct amount.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Since conscientious objection to vaccination has been respected, should individuals be subjected unwillingly to this form of compulsory medication?

Mr. Crossman: This is an argument one hears, but there is no medication whatever in ensuring that the water supply of the rest of the country is of the same mixture as in The Hartlepools and Colchester. I cannot believe this to be medication, as it would save hundreds of thousands of cases of dental decay. I hope that hon. Gentlemen will assist me in that cause.

Dr. Summerskill: Would my right hon. Friend make it clear to hon. Members with no teeth that they are already drinking fluoride in their water?

Hon. Members: Shame.

Dr. Summerskill: This is a question simply of adding a little more where water is deficient in fluoride. Would the Minister also make it clear that many other things are already being added to their water which they do not know about?

Mr. Crossman: I do not want to go into this matter in detail, but I accept what my hon. Friend says. It is only a matter of getting exactly the right amount of fluoride, neither too much nor too little.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: Since there is a good deal of controversy and feeling about this matter, can the Secretary of State give an assurance to the House that he still intends to leave the decision to local authorities?

Mr. Crossman: We have now published a report which contains an overwhelming case for fluoridation. I said that I hoped local authorities would take action, but it is disconcerting to see how


a very small group can deliberately spread misinformation and lies to deter an important social reform.

Mr. Rankin: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOSPITALS

Chelmsley and Coleshill Hall Hospitals

Mr. Speed: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what action he proposes to take to relieve overcrowding at Chelmsley and Coleshill Hall hospitals; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Crossman: As a first step, arrangements have been made for immediate erection at Coleshill Hall Hospital of a demountable ward unit with space for 30 patients, and a number of other schemes for providing more space quickly at these hospitals are being considered by the hospital management committee, the regional hospital board and my Department.

Mr. Speed: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the patients and staff at Coleshill. Hall are appreciative of the swift action which has been taken since his visit, but would he also agree that none of us can be satisfied until the grim conditions of both these hospitals are fully and effectively dealt with?

Mr. Crossman: I would entirely agree. Of course, it should not be assumed that every time I visit a hospital a 30-bed unit will be provided. Here was a very unusual case. Staff morale was excellent and staffing was adequate. Overcrowding was the sole real problem. The giving of a ward enabled one to get flexibility for the upgrading of other wards. That was the reason why I gave the ward.

Accident Units

Mr. Rose: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will take steps to increase the staffs of accident units in hospitals and to improve the position of nurses and junior hospital doctors in order to speed up treatment of urgent cases in understaffed hospitals.

Mr. Crossman: Advice has been given to hospital authorities on the staffing of accident and emergency departments. Concentration of services into major centres will help to improve staffing where deficiencies exist.

Mr. Rose: Is the Minister aware that the treatment of urgent injury cases often is delayed for a considerable time because of the shortage of staff? This applies in the Manchester area in particular. I should like to thank the Minister for looking into this matter after the rather negative reply which was received some months ago. Would he see that more staff are allocated to these very important units?

Mr. Crossman: Yes, Sir. I am particularly aware of the pressure on junior staff and the danger of their being moved from duties which may be urgent. I must do something about the matter, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing it to my attention.

Mr. Prior: Is the Minister aware that hospitals on the periphery are finding it very hard to get staff and that this is resulting in some wards having to be closed? What does he intend to do to help such hospitals to get more staff?

Mr. Crossman: That may well happen, but it still remains true that this year the number of staff in hospitals is greater than ever before, and of course the quality of service is constantly rising.

Subnormal Patients, East Hertfordshire

Sir D. Walker-Smith: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he is aware that the difficulties in the reception and treatment of subnormal patients in East Hertfordshire have been aggravated by the suspension of admissions to South Ockendon Hospital; and what compensatory provision or improvements he proposes to make.

Mr. Crossman: Yes, Sir. Immediate steps to relieve pressure at the hospital include the addition of a ward unit and improved staffing. Additional beds and day facilities for subnormal patients will be provided elsewhere and the discharge of some patients to local authority care is being considered.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: While I do not want in any way to aggravate the problems of South Ockendon Hospital, a hospital which I hold in high regard, would the Minister not accept that he must either make it possible for there to be a resumption of the full flow of subnormal patients to this hospital, or make some other adequate alternative arrangements so that these distressing cases which are constantly being brought to my notice and to the notice of others may be properly, sympathetically, and helpfully dealt with?

Mr. Crossman: We ought to get the problem in perspective. Since we have been examining the matter carefully, the Board has now identified 127 patients at South Ockendon most of whom do not appear to need hospital care and who should be under the care of local authorities outside. A few of these have been moved already. The main job is to get local authorities to build hostels and to get staff to look after those patients properly so that urgent cases can take their place. This is a major problem of integrating the service to which we are giving attention.

Mental Subnormality Hospitals

Mr. Dean: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what additional money has now been allocated to mental subnormality hospitals; and what steps are being taken to improve conditions for the staff.

Mr. Crossman: About £1 million in the current year. A considerable part of this sum and of future additional expenditure will be spent on improvements which will benefit staff, such as relief of overcrowding, ancillary help and staff accommodation.

Mr. Dean: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that that additional allocation will be warmly welcomed? At the same time, will he pay special attention to the staff in these hospitals who are giving devoted service in very difficult conditions?

Mr. Crossman: I very much appreciate what the hon. Gentleman has said. I wish that more people outside this House, in commenting on these hospitals, would recognise the dedication and devotion of the staff.

Mr. Moonman: Will my right hon. Friend also look at the management of the Service so that assessment facilities in hospitals for children can be improved? The point was made in a recent report that only 4 per cent. of 3,000 children had been assessed in the previous 12 months. Would he look also at the possibility of giving urgent aid to those hospitals which have more than 60 people in wards?

Mr. Crossman: Yes. I am afraid that there are a great many subnormal hospitals where there are over 60 people in wards. We are looking closely at management and also at the membership of hospital management committees.

MEMBERS (LEGAL PROCEEDINGS BY CIVIL SERVANTS)

Mr. van Straubenzee: asked the Attorney-General whether his consent has to be obtained before civil servants threaten or institute legal proceedings for libel or slander against Members of this honourable House in matters arising out of or in the course of their employment as civil servants.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Arthur Irvine): No, Sir.

Mr. Hector Hughes: On a point of order. Is not Question No. 35 purely hypothetical? Should it appear on the Order Paper at all?

Mr. Speaker: I will not rule upon whether a Question is hypothetical.

Mr. van Straubenzee: Would not the learned Solicitor-General think it wise if such a procedure were to apply, since there is a very narrow line in this respect in regard to the activities of hon. Members of this House in the course of their duties, and particularly those hon. Members who do not have legal training and who therefore are unable to stand up to any such threats which they might receive?

The Solicitor-General: In a case where it was alleged that an hon. Member of this House had defamed a civil servant, the matter normally would be referred to his departmental legal advisers and, if necessary, they would consult the Law Officers. I do not feel disposed to go beyond that.

Mr. Shinwell: Will my hon. and learned Friend clear up this matter—for me, at any rate, if not for others? Does that mean that a civil servant can sue an hon. Member for libel over any statement made in this Chamber? Surely that is a matter of privilege,

The Solicitor-General: A statement made in this Chamber is a matter of privilege. Generally speaking, it must be fully recognised that a civil servant is entitled to his remedy in the courts in the same way as an ordinary individual.

GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (CORRESPONDENCE)

Mr. van Straubenzee: asked the Attorney-General what is the machinery for consultation between his Department and solicitors attached to other Government departments on the form of letters written in on legal matters in connection with the affairs of that department and addressed to the citizens involved.

The Solicitor-General: The form of letters between Departments and members of the public on legal subjects is a matter for the Departments concerned and their legal advisers. It is open to the Departments to consult the Law Officers in cases of difficulty as they arise.

Mr. van Straubenzee: Nevertheless, would the hon. and learned Gentleman not feel disposed to send for the kind of letter which the solicitor for the Land Commission is addressing to small levy payers who are not exempted by the last Finance Bill—and, by definition, therefore are small people? In the view of many people, the letters contain threats which are quite improper as applied to the small person in the various constituencies.

The Solicitor-General: I think that it should be a matter for the legal advisers of Departments to determine cases in which it is thought desirable to consult with the Law Officers. I do not respond very favourably to the thought that the Law Officers should send for such letters.

Sir P. Rawlinson: Having regard to what my hon. Friend has just said, would it not be advisable for the Law Officers to look at the correspondence themselves?

The Solicitor-General: I am ready to consider this, certainly, and to look at the letters to which the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) has referred. However, I am answering a Question about departmental practice, and I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will agree that, on the whole, the existing practice works very well and that these matters are usually properly and satisfactorily initiated by the legal officers in the Departments.

CUBE-CUTTING (REPORT)

Mr. Arthur Lewis: asked the Attorney-General when he expects to get the report on the practice known as cube-cutting; what is the reason for the delay in completing these investigations; and whether he will make a statement.

The Solicitor-General: I am unable to give my hon. Friend an estimate of when I expect to receive this Report. As my right hon. and learned Friend told him on 30th June, 1969 [Vol. 786, c. 30] the investigation has proved to be complicated and considerable. It necessitates an examination of the circumstances of many hundreds of different transactions, and documents involving a large number of companies. I am satisfied, however, that every effort is being made to complete the investigation as soon as possible.

Mr. JOHN BLOOM (PROSECUTION COSTS)

Mr. Arthur Lewis: asked Mr. Attorney-General whether he will now make a statement on how much public money was expended on the various investigations and legal charges in connection with the trial of John Bloom; why it took so long; and what were the reasons for the total costs.

The Solicitor-General: The proceedings before the examining Justice which resulted in Mr. Bloom's committal for trial involved five other men, one of whom was discharged; the trial of the other four is pending. It is not possible to determine how much of the expenditure on investigations and legal costs relates to the case of Mr. Bloom. I understand that the total cost of the Board or Trade investigation was some £66,230.
Prosecution costs in the committal proceedings were £24,500. Figures for the costs of the prosecution at the Old Bailey are not yet available. The time taken over this case and its expense both reflect the complexity of the transactions concerned.

Mr. Lewis: Is it not deplorable that such long periods elapse before the legal profession seems to get cracking on anything, following which we have estimates in the Press of costs in the region of £1 million? Cannot the legal profession be put on a productive bonus effort? Industrial workers would soon get their pants kicked if they took five years to get moving.

The Solicitor-General: I think that my hon. Friend under-estimates the complexity of the transactions involved in this case.

Mr. Shinwell: Does it not seem that some form of crime does pay? Lawyers, in particular, seem to do very well out of it.

The Solicitor-General: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will agree that crime certainly should never pay.

COAL INDUSTRY (STRIKE)

Sir J. Eden (by Private Notice): asked the Minister of Technology whether he will make a statement about the immediate effect of the miners' strike on the supply of coal for the wool, textile, steel and other industries.

The Paymaster-General (Mr. Harold Lever): In general, distributed coal stocks are high. Power stations have about seven weeks' supply in hand, the gas industry enough for 3½ weeks; steel for two weeks and other large industrial coal-users for between two and three weeks, on average. Total distributed coal stocks amount to 18 million tons.
I cannot, of course, rule out the possibility that some individual consumers may be facing early difficulties. So far, however, only the wool-textile industry has expressed concern to me about the risk of early shortage.

Sir J. Eden: First, I should like to welcome the right hon. Gentleman to this particular post.
May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has been informed that some wool-textile mills may have to close unless they can get supplies almost at once?
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the steel industry oven production has been cut back to 60 per cent. and that in some areas coke stocks are down to less than one week's consumption? Will he give the House an assurance that there will be no interference with the drawing on pit-head stocks of coal?

Mr. Lever: On the information that I have, it would seem that the wool-textile industry should be able to cope with the situation for the rest of the week.
I cannot speak about the details of the stock position in the steel industry, but the overall position is as I have given it. The question of other stocks is one for the Coal Board, upon which the responsibility lies to assist its customers to the best of its ability.

Mr. Lubbock: Concerning the delivered stocks to power stations constituting seven weeks' supply, will the Minister give an assurance that this supply is uniform throughout the country and that there are not likely to be local shortages?
Further, will he represent publicly to those concerned that the strike is likely to encourage the electricity supply industry to speed up the conversion from coal to oil in its power stations?

Mr. Lever: While I cannot engage in statistical niceties, I think that I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no risk to supplies to power stations in the next few weeks.
On the latter part of the question, I do not think that comment in that area would be very helpful from me at this time.

Mr. Kelley: Is the Minister aware that if there is any anxiety about supplies for industry it might be largely due to the lack of consideration which the Government have given to the protests which have been made about the run-down of the coal industry? Stocks have fallen from 29 million tons to less than 21 million tons over the past few months.

Mr. Lever: I do not accept that. This matter has been fully discussed in the


House. Stocks are ample in ordinary circumstances. We cannot relate this present possibility of shortage to the total size of the coal industry.

Mr. David Griffiths: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is unfortunate that the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden) has not mentioned one of our more vitally humane institutions, namely, hospitals? He has only mentioned private industry profits —steel, wool, etc.

Mr. R. Carr: In view of the settlement of the dispute, which is the only real answer, can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the offer which Lord Robens made last week—

Mr. Speaker: Order. With respect, this Question is about the shortage of supplies of coal to certain industries. Questions must be put on that basis.

LONDON UNDERGROUND (STRIKE)

Mrs. Thatcher (by Private Notice): asked the Minister of Transport whether he will make a statement on the strike affecting London underground services today.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Fred Mulley): An unofficial one-day strike by London Transport guards took place today. I understand from London Transport that during the morning peak between a third and half of the normal train services were operated and that this improved later in the day.
Near normal services were operated on the main Metropolitan Line, the East London Line, the Northern City Line and on the Woodford-Hainault branch of the Central Line.
On the Victoria Line, which was not affected by the strike, a defective train unfortunately caused services to be suspended for over an hour between Warren Street and Victoria during the morning peak. On other lines only restricted or skeleton services could be run.
I am sorry about the situation and the inconvenience it has caused. The action by the men is, I understand, against the advice of their unions, who are trying to prevent a repetition of the stoppage.

Mrs. Thatcher: First, I congratulate the Minister. I believe that this is his first appearance in his present capacity. I wish him a happy, but short, spell of office. Apart from any electoral considerations, a short spell is all that anyone on that side of the House gets at the Ministry of Transport.
Is the Minister aware that this is the third occasion during the last few months on which I have had to put down a similar Question affecting commuters into London, that the Reply we get is always the same, that the Minister is always sorry, but unofficial strikes recur?
In view of the chaotic conditions this morning, may I ask what action the right hon. Gentleman proposes to take on behalf of the travelling public?

Mr. Mulley: First, I thank the hon. Lady for her kind remarks. I should, indeed, have wished to make my debut on a happier occasion.
I must point out that responsibility for the running of transport in London is that of the London Transport Board, and that I certainly do not propose to undertake or seek to undertake to manage it myself. Indeed, the House has already passed a Bill, which we hope will shortly come into effect, whereby the Greater London Council becomes responsible for London Transport.
Unhappily, negotiations between the unions and the board on wages questions have given rise to these unofficial strikes. Although they are totally unofficial, at this moment the unions are having meetings with a view to getting the earliest possible resumption today and to trying to avoid any repetition.

Sir B. Janner: I should like to add my unqualified felicitations to the Minister and to the House on his occupying this post, and to wish him many years' occupation of it—unless he gets something better, which I hope he will.
May I ask my right hon. Friend whether he will ask the Home Secretary, on occasions like this, to see that traffic wardens and others do not serve tickets on motorists at the various parking places where they do at present and whether parks and other places will be open for parking so that the smallest inconvenience is caused to commuters?

Mr. Mulley: One of the difficulties is that this kind of lightning strike takes place without due notice. We shall be keeping the parking arrangements under review, but it is not normal to bring in special arrangements where, as I hope this is, there is a strike for one day only.

Mr. Maudling: My hon. Friend asked the Minister what he intended to do apart from saying that he was sorry about these repeated problems facing commuters to London. Do we take it from the Minister's reply that the answer is, "Simply nothing"?

Mr. Mulley: The right hon. Gentleman has a constituency responsibility in the London area. He knows that I have no statutory power to intervene. It would be wrong to do so in negotiations between the management and the unions. Second, the right hon. Gentleman knows that the House has decided that the new arrangements for London Transport will shortly be brought into effect.

Mr. Shinwell: I regret the inconvenience caused to passengers by these sporadic disputes; I have suffered, too. But is my right hon. Friend surprised that men earning relatively low wages seek further increments of income when the Government have been responsible for allowing the salaries of high-ranking civil servants to be increased by nearly £1,000 a year, and the chairmen of nationalised industries to receive even more than that? In view of those increments of wealth to those sections of the community, is it any wonder that these men go on strike?

Mr. Mulley: I do not altogether accept my right hon. Friend's analysis, but there can be no dispute that what he has said goes rather wider than my responsibility.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Will the Minister bear in mind that these London Transport strikes cause tremendous inconvenience to thousands of commuters, many of whom come from the area that I represent, and also waste millions of gallons of petrol because of congestion, all of which will add to the smog that we expect tonight? As an example of the inconvenience, is the Minister aware that it took me 2¼ hours to get from London Airport to Westminster today, using three gallons of petrol instead of the usual half gallon?

Mr. Mulley: I do not know to what extent the men concerned will be moved by learning of the inconvenience caused to the hon. Gentleman, but it is right that the House should make quite clear the enormous inconvenience and economic loss that is caused by this kind of unofficial action.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Arising out of the Minister's reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling), may I ask whether he is aware that there are steps which as Minister of Transport he can take personally to help London's thousands of commuters to get home tonight, such as radio announcements, the relaxation of licensing restrictions, and so on? Does the Minister's original statement, which contained no reference to that, mean that he proposes not to raise a finger to help these people get home?

Mr. Mulley: I think that the most effective way of trying to improve the situation tonight is by the action being taken by the unions concerned which are now in talks with the men who are on strike. Getting the men back to work is by far the most useful thing to do. Relaxing licensing and insurance arrangements for people who left their cars behind this morning will not help them to get back to the cars in their garages at home.

Mr. Molloy: Is it not a fact that all those who are being inconvenienced, or at any rate a large majority of them, are in receipt of much higher incomes than those who have gone on strike? If all the inconvenience and expense which have been mentioned are facts, is not the sensible thing to do to ask my right hon. Friend to recommend to the chairman of London Transport that he should meet this reasonable request by the guards who are on strike?

Mr. Mulley: I do not think that it would be right to go into the merits of this dispute, which is a highly technical and complicated one about the relationship between the efficiency payments system and higher mileage bonuses. The important thing is to leave this where the main responsibility lies, namely, with the unions, who are doing all they can to get the dispute resolved.

GOVERNMENT PUBLICATIONS (SUPPLY)

3.44 p.m.

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Diamond): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House. I wish to make a statement about the supply of Government publications to Parliament and members of the public.
Owing to unofficial industrial action in the London presses and binderies of Her Majesty's Stationery Office, there is interference with the supply of parliamentary and other papers. HANSARD cannot be printed, but it is hoped that other papers necessary for the business of the House will be available.

Mr. Maudling: It is obviously disturbing that, once again, the supply of parliamentary papers has been interrupted, this time, I believe, for another cause, not distributing, but binding and printing. Without going into the merits of the dispute perhaps I might ask the Minister a question about this. The right hon. Gentleman says it is hoped that papers necessary for the business of the house will be available in one form or another. What do the Government regard as necessary papers, and what will they do if they are not available?

Mr. Diamond: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for recognising that this dispute stems from a different set of causes. The answer to his first question is that with the exception of HANSARD all papers necessary for parliamentary business during the remainder of this Session will, I think, be made available.
The answer to the right hon. Gentleman's further question is that as far as I am aware from consultation with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House there should be no interruption of, and so no undue difficulty with, business for the rest of this Session. There will be minor

inconvenience in connection with some of the papers, but I am grateful to those concerned who have made it possible for hon. Members to refer to typescript copies Of HANSARD in the Library.

Mr. Orme: Is it not a fact that on this occasion the workers on strike are from the lower-paid section of this industry? Is not this symptomatic of the general problem which is arising among lower-paid workers? Will my right hon. Friend draw the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to this problem? Perhaps we might have a different attitude from the Government to lower-paid workers.

Mr. Diamond: I cannot say that, for the simple reason that there are two unions involved, one of which is working, and the other is not, and the same rates of pay are available to both.

Earl of Dalkeith: Is it not about time that we called the strikers' bluff by telling them honestly that we do not care a button if we never see another Government Bill so long as the present Government remain in office?

Mr. Diamond: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will draw that to the attention of his right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling), who asked an entirely different question.

Mr. Speaker: May I add, for the convenience of the House, that I hope that it will be possible to-morrow to produce an Order Paper in the same form as today's, but with Questions for Written Answer also included.
In addition, it is hoped that a Notice Paper will be available comprising notices of Questions and Motions handed in on Friday and today, but not additional names to existing Motions. I advise hon. Members that it may not be possible to include in either paper any notices which are received after 6 o'clock this evening.

Orders of the Day — ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE BILL [Lords]

As amended, considered.

Mr. Speaker: I have, as usual, posted up my list of selections. I have suggested that with new Clause 1 we take Amendments Nos. 16 and 17. I understand that if new Clause 1 is carried and adopted it will come after Clause 27.

New Clause 1

SECOND AND SUBSEQUENT GRANTS OF PROBATE AND ADMINISTRATION

Section 153 of the Judicature Act 1925 (which limits the district probate registries in which second and subsequent grants of probate and administration may be made) shall cease to have effect.—[The Solicitor-General.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

3.49 p.m.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Arthur Irvine): I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
The effect of the Clause will be to repeal Section 153 of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act, 1925. That section was designed to ensure that an application for a second or subsequent grant should not be applied for except at a registry which has the papers relating to the original grant, or, in the case of the Principal Probate Registry, a copy of the original grant and will. The instances of subsequent grants were most usually grants de bonis non, that is, grants in cases where an executor died leaving portions of the estate unadministered and there was no chain of executorship. In these days, when the copying of documents is such a simple task, the reason for Section 153 has disappeared, and the Section remains purely as a source of administrative problems. These arise when records are transferred from a registry which has been closed to what is now a sub-registry.
Since neither that sub-registry nor its parent district probate registry has power to issue a second grant, it means that in those cases the second or subsequent application has to be made to the Principal

Probate Registry in London. The repeal of Section 153 means that this will not happen in future.
Mr. Speaker, you mentioned that Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 could be considered with the new Clause. Amendment No. 16 places Section 153 in the Schedule of repeals and the other Amendment makes the necessary alteration to the Long Title.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Clause 3

TRANSFER OF CERTAIN ACTIONS OF CON- TRACT OR TORT FROM COUNTY COURT TO HIGH COURT AT DEFENDANT'S INSTANCE

Mr. Speaker: We now come to Amendments No. 1, which I suggest we take with Amendments Nos. 2, 4, 5 and 7, all on the same question of amending sums of money mentioned in the Bill.

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 20, leave out '£150' and insert '£100'.
Mr. Speaker, it is convenient that this Amendment should be considered with the Amendments that you have mentioned, particularly because Amendment No. 1 is consequential upon the proposed Amendment No. 2.
The position is that under Section 47(1)(b) of the County Courts Act 1959, a plaintiff who brings in the High Court an action which he could have brought in the county court is not entitled to any costs if he recovers less than £75. By way of exception to this general rule, under the law Section 47(4) provides that a plaintiff who recovers £40 or more in a debt-collecting action in the High Court shall be entitled to fixed costs on a prescribed scale. Clause 4(1)(c) substitutes £150 for the figure of £75 in Section 47(1)(b), and Clause 4(2) repeals Section 47(4).
The result is that under the Bill as it stands a plaintiff who recovered less than £150 in the High Court would not be entitled to any costs, whether or not the action was a debt-collecting one. The figure of £150 is amply justified, in our


view, because there can be no valid reason for bringing an action for less than this sum in the High Court, unless it involves a point of special importance or difficulty, in which case the court has full power to award costs on the appropriate scale.
The figure of £150 is well below that recommended by the Winn Committee on Personal Injuries Litigation and the Payne Committee on the Enforcement of Judgment Debts. Judging by the number of judgments in default of appearance or defence, or under Order 14 in 1968, the effect of substituting £150 for £75 in Section 47(1)(b) and of repealing Section 47(4) would be to divert to the county court just under a half of the debt-collecting cases now brought in the High Court. Thirty-four thousand and thirty-six of the 73,175 judgments were for sums less than £150.
The under-sheriffs have represented to my noble Friend that to take away so much of this work would make it difficult if not impracticable for some of them to carry out their duties. They are responsible for executing all writs for the enforcement of High Court judgments including writs of fi.fa. and possession. Until recently they were responsible also for the collection of fines imposed at assizes and quarter sessions. But the Criminal Justice Act, 1967 transferred this duty to the magistrates' courts. It did not, however, relieve them of the onerous and comparatively unremunerative work of summoning jurors and attending at assizes.
It must be accepted, therefore, that if, as a result of the proposed change in the costs sanctions, the number of writs of fi.fa. issued in the High Court were reduced by nearly a half it would have a serious financial effect on the under-sheriffs.
They recognise that if, as the Payne Committee proposes, the county court is ultimately given exclusive jurisdiction in debt recovery, they will be forced out of business, but they do not wish to be placed meanwhile in such a position that some of them have difficulty in carrying on, and the Government have had regard to that transient condition which, if things had been left as they were, would have afflicted them. From the public point of view it is plainly essential to maintain machinery for executing such

judgments as remain enforceable in the High Court.
The object of the present Amendment is to mitigate the loss to the under-sheriffs by reducing from £150 to £100 the minimum sum which a plaintiff must recover in the High Court in order to avoid being deprived of costs. Judging again by the number of summary judgments in the High Court in 1968, the result is likely to be that just under 30 per cent. instead of just under 47 per cent. of the debt-collecting actions now brought in the High Court would be diverted to the county court.
Out of the 73,175 judgments to which I have already referred, 21,678 were for less than £100. In the Government's view this is as far as it is possible to go in assisting the under-sheriffs without impairing one of the main objects of the Bill, which is to discourage plaintiffs from bringing in the High Court actions for which the county court is the proper forum.
We have made every endeavour to balance considerations here in a way which has proper regard to the object of the Bill and to the reasonable representations that have been made by the under-sheriffs.
Amendment No. 2 has the effect of substituting £100 for £75 in Section 47(1)(b) of the County Courts Act, 1959, which deals with the costs recoverable in actions of contract and tort brought in the High Court for a sum of money. Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 make similar alterations in the new Section 47(1A), dealing with actions for the recovery of goods. Amendment No. 7 operates upon Section 60, which deals with the costs of certain Admiralty proceedings.
I said at the outset that Amendment No. 1 is consequential on the proposed Amendment No. 2. The position is that Clause 3 amends Section 44(1) of the County Courts Act, 1959, which enables an action of contract or tort for a sum exceeding £40 to be transferred from the county court to the High Court at the instance of the defendant if he gives the prescribed security and the judge certifies that an important question of law or fact is likely to arise. The sum of £40 is related to the "costs sanctions" in Section 47 of the Act of 1959.
Under this Section, if a plaintiff brings in the High Court an action which he could have brought in the county court, he is not entitled to any costs unless, in a debt collecting action, he recovers more than £40. Where, in consequence of this provision, a plaintiff brings an action for less than £40 in the county court, it would clearly be unreasonable to give the defendant a right under Section 44(1) of the 1959 Act to have the action transferred to the High Court.
The effect of Clause 4 of the Bill as it stands is to deprive a plaintiff of costs where he sues in the High Court and recovers less than £150. Clause 3 accordingly substitutes £150 for £40 in Section 44(1). As it is proposed to substitute £100 for the references to £150 in Clause 4, the present Amendment makes a corresponding alteration in the figure mentioned in Clause 3.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. David Waddington (Nelson and Colne): I should like to raise a point on the first Amendment. At first sight, it seems rather difficult to see why any claim, however small, should not go to the High Court at the defendant's election, provided that the judge certifies that an important point of law arises. After all, as has been explained, the plaintiff can bring an action in the High Court, however little money is involved.
It is perhaps hard for a layman to understand why, if a plaintiff can bring an action in the High Court subject to a penalty as to costs, however little money is involved, the defendant in his turn cannot, provided that the judge says that an important point of law arises, have an action commenced in the county court transferred to the High Court so that it can be aired more fully. The plaintiff would be protected if the money limit were removed because the judge would still have to grant a certificate and because the defendant would still have to afford the security for the amount claimed in costs.
I should like to ask the Solicitor-General a question. Presumably, the reason for the old £40 rule was the fear that the High Court would be overburdened by cases brought by defendants unless some such restriction were

imposed. I wonder whether the Solicitor-General can say how many cases, in fact, go to the High Court each year as a result of an application made by the defendant to a judge on the ground that the case involves a point of law of importance. I cannot remember any case in my own experience which has found its way to the High Court because of an application made by the defendant under this Section of the principal Act. I shall be grateful if the Solicitor-General can enlighten us.

Mr. Ian Percival: I am sure that the Solicitor-General will forgive me if I say that, stripped of all technical terms, what he said really amounts to this: if we had done what we originally intended to do we might have driven the sheriffs out of business altogether, and that would have been a nuisance; we are not doing this just for sentimental reasons, but it would have been a nuisance because there would have been nobody left to enforce the High Court judgments. I think that is not an unfair, albeit untechnical, summary of what the hon. and learned Gentleman said this afternoon.
I think that it is a very good reason for making this Amendment because I think he is right. If the Amendment had not been made, the consequence would have been very unfortunate. We live in an age when it is very easy for mistakes like this to be made. Many of us who have to consider problems of this kind need to have a whole handful or armful of various reports relating to the administration of justice—the Evershed Committee, the Payne Committee, the Winn Committee and now the Beeching Committee.
I for one hope that to avoid errors of this kind, somebody may now be able to sit back with all these reports and correlate them all so that we may have a White Paper on how they all fit in with one another, so that we may consider what is to happen and avoid the danger of mistakes like the one to which I referred. As I have said, it is very easy for mistakes like this to happen and it is very important that we do not let them happen.
I am sure that the Solicitor-General will not think me over-critical if I say


that I think this is one that could and should have been observed and dealt with sooner. We on this side of the House have not half the facilities that the Government have, and it is quite right that we should have to jog along with fewer facilities, but it will not have escaped the attention of the Solicitor-General that as early as the Committee stage we, with far fewer facilities, had become seized of this point and were asking the Government to leave the situation alone so far as the bottom figure—the cut-off—was concerned. Our reason for urging that was the very reason which is now advanced for this Amendment.
It will be no surprise to the Solicitor-General to know that I shall conclude shortly by welcoming his Amendment, because I remind myself and the House that in Committee I said:
If the Solicitor-General"—
who had resisted our Amendment—
had said, 'I will not accept £75, but I will accept £100,' we on this side would have gone along with it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 17th April, 1969; c. 66.]
We are glad that, albeit belatedly, he is proposing to do that and we support him in so doing.

The Solicitor-General: By the leave of the House, Mr. Speaker, I desire to deal with the points raised so helpfully on the other side of the House on the question of the cases where the defendant might take a point of importance to the High Court. I did not have notice of this; I make no complaint about that, but I am anxious to deal with it before we finish our consideration of this Amendment.
It seems to me that if the defendant forced the plaintiff into the High Court and the defendant won on the kind of point that has been adumbrated, the plaintiff would be liable for High Court costs and prima facie that might have a rather unfair consequence. One also has to consider the Legal Aid Fund.
In answer to the question of fact, my understanding is that only 37 actions were transferred to the High Court in 1968. This was under all Sections of the County Courts Act. I am glad to have had the opportunity of answering this question.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 4

COSTS OF PROCEEDINGS COMMENCED IN HIGH COURT WHICH COULD HAVE BEEN COMMENCED IN COUNTY COURT

Amendment made: No. 2, in page 2, line 33, leave out '£150' and insert '£100'.—[The Solicitor-General.]

Mr. Percival: I beg to move Amendment No. 3, in page 2, line 33, at end insert:
(d) after paragraph (b) of that subsection there shall be inserted the following paragraph:—
(c) in this subsection "costs of the action" means the costs incurred up to and including the obtaining of judgment and does not mean or include the costs of executing judgment and a plaintiff who executes in the High Court the judgment which he has obtained shall be entitled to the costs of such execution on the appropriate High Court Scale'.
I wish to strip this Amendment of its technicalities in the same way as I think I was able to strip the last one of its technicalities, although I see no way of achieving that.
The point we are considering is this. Section 47, or the operative part of it, refers throughout to the costs of the action and says that in certain circumstances a party shall not have the costs of the action on any scale higher than the county court scale.
During our discussion of the Bill, the question arose whether the costs of execution are the same as the costs of the action. I suspect that the Solicitor-General will tell us that there is no doubt about it and that those who have been worrying need not have worried. Our purpose in moving the Amendment is to make as sure as one can that those who have been worried about it are not worried hereafter.
I believe that the Amendment does no more than recite the law as it stands at the moment, and certainly its purpose is so to do. I say that because I have had the benefit of seeing a letter written by the permanent secretary to the Lord Chancellor to the president of the Under-Sheriffs' Association, following a discussion at which this point was considered by those gentlemen, in which the permanent secretary said, I understand, that the position in law was as set out in


the Amendment, namely, that costs of the action do not include costs of execution.
Thus, albeit that the party may, because of Section 47(1), not be entitled to any of the costs of the action because he proceeded in the High Court in a case in which the amount was less than £100, even so he will be entitled to the costs of execution on the High Court scale, because the costs of execution are not costs of the action.
I understand that to be the proposition of law as set out in the letter to which I have referred. I see the learned Solicitor-General looking in a certain direction, and I think that that is exactly what the letter says. I am not sure whether the hon. and learned Gentleman agrees or disagrees, or whether he wishes to intervene.

The Solicitor-General: I am anxious that the hon. and learned Gentleman should not attach too much significance to innocent movements of my head to ascertain who is present and who is not.

Mr. Percival: I was endeavouring to ascertain whether the hon. and learned Gentleman was indicating agreement with me, for, if he had, I should have been able to cut the matter short. However, having interrupted my train of thought in that way, I must endeavour now to return to it.
I believe, as I say, that our Amendment states the law as it is, in accordance with the law as stated by the permanent secretary to the Lord Chancellor in the letter to which I referred. It may be asked: if that be so, why bother further? The reason we ought to bother in this case is that, even if that is the law, there are a good many people who do not know that it is. The point has been raised by solicitors in various parts of the country. It has been raised by the under-sheriffs through their association, who, after all, are fairly knowledgable in these matters. If everyone knew the point, one would imagine that the first people to be well aware of it would be the under-sheriffs and their association.
I have been looking at the Final Report of the Evershed Committee. Again, the matter is far from clear, it looks as though that Committee may not have

appreciated that costs of execution are not costs of the action.
4.15 p.m.
Finally, I turned to the case relied on by the permanent secretary, the case of Armitage v. Jessop, in which, apparently, the Chief Justice said specifically that the costs of execution are not costs of the action. That was a case in 1866. I have no doubt that it is still the law, and I am sure that the permanent secretary was right when he said that he apprehended that there could be no doubt that that decision would be followed in construing Section 47(1). But there are not many people who know about that case at present.
I did what I suppose any practising lawyer would do when in doubt on a question like this. I looked up Section 47 to see whether Armitage v. Jessop was noted at that point in the county court practice. In my edition, which I believe to be the latest, it is not referred to. I looked, therefore, at the next practice book, the White Book, and I did not find it referred to there.
I then wrote to the Solicitor-General, who, with his customary courtesy, replied—I summarise it in this way—that it was his view that the law was sufficiently well established in the terms set out in the Amendment as to render the Amendment unnecessary. As I understood his letter, he did not quarrel with my proposition that the Amendment was merely declaratory of the law, but, on the contrary, he said that the law was so well established that it was unnecessary to declare it.
That was a source of some comfort to me, but I remain concerned that people should know what the law is. It is no good the law being clear unless people know it. I hope that our short debate on the matter will have a good result in this sense. If, as I suspect will happen, the Solicitor-General confirms what I have said, as he did in his letter, that the law is well established, that statement will carry weight with solicitors practising in these matters, with under-sheriffs and, perhaps, even with registrars. Although one cannot quote what is said in the House, there is reason to believe that it sometimes becomes known to people in the courts.
For all those reasons, I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will be able to make a clear statement on the matter, removing for the future any doubt on the point among practitioners.

The Solicitor-General: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Member for Southport (Mr. Percival) for the care which he has, to my knowledge, applied to this question. I am always cautious—I am sure that he will understand and, perhaps, share the same disposition—before expressing my understanding of the law in terms which are merely confirmatory of something which an hon. or hon. and learned Member has said. I propose, therefore, to deal with the point rather in my own way, although I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for his consideration of the question.
I am anxious also, about the nightmarish possibility which opens before us if the course is too widely adopted, as he recommended it, of spelling out in a statute the effect of an authority which is not widely known. That process calls for somewhat cautious application.
The object of the Amendment appears to be to ensure that the limitations imposed by Section 47(1) of the County Courts Act, 1959 that the costs of a plaintiff who brings in the High Court an action which he could have brought in the county court shall apply only to the costs incurred up to judgment and not to the costs of executing the judgment.
Under Section 47(1) the plaintiff is not entitled to any costs of the action if he recovers less than £75 and he is entitled only to county court costs of the action if he recovers less than £400. Clause 4(1)(b) provides that £500 be substituted for the figure of £400 and under the Government Amendment £100 will be substituted for the figure of £75. It is to be expected, therefore, that most of the debt-collecting actions for sums between £100 and £500 will continue to be brought in the High Court.
The Under Sheriffs' Association has questioned, however, whether this will be the case if the plaintiff is not to be able to recover the costs of executing his judgment in the High Court. Section 47(4) provides, by way of an exception to subsection (1), that the plaintiff in a debt-collecting action in the High Court

who recovers £40 or more shall be entitled to costs or such scale as may be prescribed by the rules of the Supreme Court. Among the costs prescribed by Appendix 3 to the Rules of the Supreme Court Order 62 for this purpose is an item of £3 9s. for the costs of issuing execution.
The under-sheriffs fear that if Section 47(4) is repealed in accordance with Clause 4(2), a plaintiff in the High Court who, under Section 47(1), is entitled only to county court costs will no longer be able to recover the costs of enforcing his judgment in the High Court but only to the corresponding county court costs.
We believe that this fear is unfounded, and this is where we come to the case of Armitage v. Jessop to which the hon. and learned Member referred. I agree with him that it is desirable that this case should be more widely known than it is. It was held in that case that although under the County Courts Acts then in force a plaintiff who recovered a debt not exceeding £20 in the High Court was not entitled to the costs of the action, he was still entitled to the costs of execution.
The Chief Justice, Erle C.J., said quite specifically that the costs of execution are not costs of the action. That is the law today. This is the expression used in Section 41(1) of the present County Courts Act and there can be little doubt that, even if subsection (4) is repealed, the costs sanctions imposed by Section 47(1) will not apply to the plaintiff's costs of enforcing his judgment in the High Court.
My noble Friend the Lord Chancellor intends to recommend to the Supreme Court Rule Committee, when the Bill is passed, that it should again prescribe fixed costs for undefended cases in which only county court costs are recoverable under Section 47(1) and that these should, where appropriate, include the usual costs of execution in the High Court. Notwithstanding the repeal of subsection (4), the Rule Committee will clearly have power to do this under the provision in Section 99(1)(e) of the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act, 1925 which enables them to make rules regulating any matters relating to the costs of the proceedings.
The first part of the Amendment, which provides that "costs of the action" means "the costs incurred up to" judgment and does not include the costs


of execution is therefore, in our view, unnecessary. The second part, which provides that a plaintiff who executes his judgment in the High Court shall be entitled to High Court costs of execution goes too far, for while it is right that a plaintiff who is entitled to the costs of the action, albeit on the county court scale, should also be entitled to the cost of executing his judgment in the High Court, it cannot be right that a plaintiff who is not entitled to any costs of the action should, nevertheless, be able to execute his judgment in the High Court at the expense of the defendant.
In accordance with a recommendation in paragraph 393(b) of the Final Report of the Evershed Committee on Supreme Court Practice and Procedure—Cmnd. 8878—Rules of Supreme Court Order 47, Rule 4, provides that a writ of fi.fa. to enforce a judgment for less than £40 which does not entitle the plaintiff to costs shall not authorise the sheriff to levy any fees, poundage or other costs of execution. In such a case the plaintiff is expected to enforce his judgment by issuing a warrant of execution in the county court under the powers conferred by Section 139 of the County Courts Act, 1959.
The sum of £40 is the amount below which a plaintiff in a debt-collecting action in the High Court is not at present entitled to High Court costs under Section 47(4) of the Act. When the Bill is passed it will not only be necessary to retain Rules of Supreme Court Order 47, Rule 4, but also no doubt to substitute a higher figure for £40.
I must therefore ask the House to reject the Amendment. I will give consideration to what method there is of bringing the effect of Armitage v. Jessop home to those to who will be interested and concerned.

Mr. Percival: I am obliged to the Solicitor-General.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. and learned Member needs the leave of the House if he wishes to speak again.

Mr. Percival: I thought that I was intervening. If not, I seek the leave of the House. I thought that the Solicitor-General was giving way, because I indicated that I was asking a question.

The Solicitor-General: I had finished.

Mr. Percival: I found it difficult to follow what the Solicitor-General said. I understood him to say that he was not proposing to do anything which would alter the law as decided in Armitage v. Jessop. On the contrary, he proposed to take such steps as might be appropriate to see that it was brought to the attention of more people. But Armitage v. Jessop decided that a person who was not entitled to any costs of bringing the action in the High Court should nevertheless have the costs of execution in the High Court.
There appears to be some inconsistency in what the hon. and learned Gentleman said. I will gladly give way to him, as I thought he was giving way to me, if he would care to clarify the point by making it clear that the Lord Chancellor does not have in mind any rules which would have the effect of reversing Armitage v. Jessop. We should then know rather better where we stand. Apparently he does not wish to intervene and we shall have to read the report. As he does not rise to intervene to put the matter clear, let me state that he has said two things which are inconsistent and that it is unsatisfactory that the House should be left in that situation.

Amendment negatived.

Amendments made: No. 4, in page 3, line 5, leave out '£150' and insert '£100'.

No. 5, in page 3, line 9, leave out '£150' and insert '£100'.—[Mr. Solicitor-General.]

Mr. Percival: I beg to move Amendment No. 6, in page 3, line 14, leave out subsection (2) and insert:
(2) In subsection (4) of the said section 47 for the words 'forty pounds' there shall be substituted the words 'seventy five pounds'.
The Amendments with which we have been dealing have been highly technical. It has, nevertheless, been possible to deal with them quite shortly, or, at all events, I hope that it has been apparent that we on this side of the House have had in mind the desirability of getting on with the business and not going into all the technicalities. But we regard Amendment No. 6 as the most important of the Amendments which we have on the Notice Paper and I preface my remarks by saying that it will take a little longer than the earlier Amendments.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It was, however, debated in Committee.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Percival: Yes, Mr. Speaker, but only a small number of Members had the pleasure of hearing the matter in Committee. In the House the opportunity is shared by a much greater number. The difficulty is that if one tries to be too quick, either in terms of quantity or speed, the whole thing is unintelligible. It may well be that an extra 10 per cent. of time, if that results in a little more understanding, is time very well spent.
The Amendment seeks to leave out subsection (2) of the Bill as it stands, and that subsection leaves out Section 47(4) of the principal Act. So, by leaving out the subsection we bring back the other provision, but we do not suggest that it should be put back in precisely the same form as that in which it has been for some time, because this has a financial limit in it, and for the same reason that it has been accepted that all the financial limit should go up, so we accept that this limit, too, should go up. So instead of putting back £40 as the cutoff figure, we propose a cut-off figure of £75.
For the benefit of the House, let me endeavour to simplify the matter in this way. I am not quite sure whether the purpose of the subsection was fully understood in Committee or would necessarily be understood at first glance in the House or elsewhere. The subsection has the very clear and definite purpose of providing for fixed costs. That is its principal purpose. The purpose is not basically the alleviating of hardships, and the rest. The primary purpose is to give power to make rules providing for costs in the cases listed in the subsection. It provides for fixed costs in debt-collecting cases as distinct from cases in which there are issues between the parties, and the case has to go to court and time is taken in placing the respective merits of each side before the court.
There is a belief, and things have been said on the Treasury Benches in Committee and in the Chamber which might foster the belief, that under Section 47(4) all one is dealing with is the giving of extra benefit to the very tiny cases, but that is not so at all. The subsection deals with fixed costs in debt-collecting cases, and under Section 47(4) rules have

been made which provide for costs at each different level. So let not the House think that this provision deals only with the little cases and the giving of special benefits to them.
There is a perfectly logical reason why Parliament has for a very long time now drawn this distinction between contested and uncontested cases. When one is dealing with debt-collecting cases—the kind of cases referred to in subsection (4)—ex hypothesi these will be just procedural steps: the issuing of the writ, the signing of judgment by default because the defendant has not entered a defence, or, at the very most, the signing of an order for judgment under Order 14. So one can make a good guess in advance what is involved in the case before it starts. It is therefore possible to have fixed scales of costs.
It is necessary and desirable to do that because—I do not know whether the learned Solicitor-General has any more personal knowledge of this than I have, but I am sure that professional clients will have told him, as they have told me—the fixing of the amount of costs to be paid by the other side can take a lot of time and cost money. Therefore, where it is possible, it is quite sensible to have fixed scales of costs.
The learned Solicitor-General has already referred to the intention of his noble and learned Friend to make rules under Section 99 of the Judicature Act, 1925, providing for fixed costs, in undefended cases. This point was made by the permanent under-secretary to the Under-Sheriffs' Association in the letter to which I have earlier referred and to which the Solicitor-General referred in connection with the last Amendment. I hope that if he has not already done so, the Solicitor-General will be able to give the House an assurance that rules providing for fixed costs will be made under Section 99 of the Judicature Act, 1925, if we are not successful with this Amendment. If the Government were to accept the Amendment, or if it were carried on a vote, that would be unnecessary.
There is another respect in which these undefended cases are distinguishable from the defended cases, and that is that, ex hypothesi, not one of them can take any judge time at all. By definition, the cases to which Section 47(4) apply


cannot take any of If anything happens that that case has court and so takes itself would take it Section 47(4).
When, in subsection (1), we were talking about Section 47, which is the first place in the passage of the Bill where we talk about having a cut-off figure below which no costs are paid—not just county court costs as against High Court costs, but no costs at all—the reason for having that cut-off was that it was necessary to deter people from bringing in the High Court cases that should be brought in the county court because it was necessary to save some of the time of the High Court judges and move work which would otherwise take their time over to the county courts.
That is a consideration that simply does not apply when one is dealing with Section 47(4), so, on the face of it, it seems wholly illogical to have the same cut-off figure of £100 in both situations when the considerations relating to the two are totally different.
Here, I want to demonstrate what Section 47(4) does, and to illustrate the point I made earlier that we are here not simply concerned with the tiny sums, and not simply trying to give some extra benefit to those who sue for small sums in the High Court. The present position under Section 47(1) is that if a plaintiff recovers over £400, he gets High Court costs. If he recovers between £75 and £400, he can recover only county court costs. And if he recovers less than £75, he gets no costs at all. That is the situation in relation to contested actions.
I will demonstrate how uncontested actions stand, in comparison, when one considers the application of Section 47(4) as it is applied now by means of rules made under it. If a plaintiff in an uncontested action recovers £300 or more, the costs which he recovers under these fixed scales of costs are equivalent to High Court costs. That is the distinction. In a contested case he must get £400 while in an uncontested case, if he gets £300, he obtains the fixed costs which are the equivalent of High Court costs.
In a case involving between £75 and £300 he gets costs on county court Scale IV. In a contested action involving between £75 and £400, he gets county court costs. In an uncontested case involving between £40 and £75 the plaintiff recovers county court costs on Scale III, whereas in a contested case, if he gets less than £75, he obtains no costs at all.
This distinction has been drawn thus far, and drawn for very good reasons indeed. These have resulted in there being just that little bit less discouragement to plaintiffs to bring actions in the High Court when they are uncontested; and my hon. Friends suggest, as we did in Committee, that that makes good sense.
It is also to be observed from the figures I have given that a most important consideration arises; that the safeguarding of the defendant has been looked after in both instances. As for the looking after of defendants, I agree that when a plaintiff has a choice of bringing an action in two courts one must remember that, if he chooses one court where the other would have done, one must have some provisions for safeguarding the defendant from having to pay more in the other event.
But we should not carry this looking after of defendants to the extent that some people appear to believe. Indeed, one recently published report seems to suggest that all creditors are cruel ogres, out to take the last penny from the purses of debtors, and that all debtors are defenceless widows. Hon. Members will have had sufficient experience in their constituencies to know that the reverse may just as easily be true.
Many of the hardest cases with which we must deal are those involving, for example, people who, one would have thought, would have known better than to have taken advantage of, say, a small trader, perhaps a builder, having obtained credit from him which they did not need and which he could not afford and then, by failing to meet their obligations, driving him out of business. I suspect that few hon. Members cannot have come across this or similar cases.
We must, of course, look after defendants, but we must not think that they are the only people who must be looked after. We are trying here to look after


the creditor as well as the debtor, remembering that it is essential in a credit system, which is what we have in this country—many of our transactions are based on this principle—that there is a creditable system for the enforcement of judgments for collecting the amounts which creditors are owed.
4.45 p.m.
Is there or is there not any reason for abolishing the distinction as to costs which has been in use for a very long time indeed; the distinction between costs rules applicable to contested cases and those applicable to uncontested cases? When one has a situation in which the main ground for fixing the cut-off in Section 47(1) at £100 is absent when one turns one's attention to uncontested cases, then it is, on the face of it, strange to adopt the same cut-off figure for both.
There may be certain points that I have overlooked. If so, I hope that the Solicitor-General will make his views clear. I will mention some of the possible reasons why such a distinction might be necessary, and on each I will briefly indicate why my hon. Friends do not think that they are reasons for taking the contrary view to that which I am urging.
If it could be said that the High Court cannot cope with all this uncontested work or that it is in some way slowing down the High Court work or making it difficult, I could see a good reason for saying, "We should take steps to persuade—the Solicitor-General's word—or drive—the word I used in Committee—people who are collecting debts below a certain amount into the county court." As far as I know, however, there has never been any suggestion from the High Court that it cannot perfectly easily deal with this debt collecting work or that it is in any way making the work of the High Court difficult or embarrassing it in the other work that it must do.
If it could be said that the sheriffs have more judgments to cope with than they can, then I could follow the Government's argument for saying that more of these uncontested cases should be persuaded or driven into the county court. But here the position is the contrary. The danger is not of overloading the sheriffs, but of taking so much away

from them that their task may be rendered difficult.
If it could be said that the county court has a more efficient system for debt collecting that is at present underemployed, then I could follow the argument for saying that we had better drive some of this work from the High Court into the county court. But thus far I have never heard anybody so argue. Some committees have said that it is as good as that of the High Court, but I shall give two good reasons, which have emerged recently, for doubting this. In any event, I have never heard anybody say that the county court has an excellent system which is at present underemployed.
Some people take the view that it is wrong to have a choice in debt collecting. I hope that I summarise the Payne Committee's Report accurately when I say that that Committee believed that there should not be a choice; that debt collecting up to £750 is a process which should be started only in the county court. This is one approach and, done that way, there would be no choice.
As for implementing arty of the recommendations of the Payne Committee, I hope that we will not fall into the error of taking isolated parts of reports of this kind and think that they are applicable on their own. The whole essence of the Payne Report seems to be the substitution of an entirely new enforcement machinery for that existing now, both in the county court and the High Court.
The new enforcement office and administration orders to be used for the enforcement of High Court and county court judgments would be an entirely different set-up from that existing now. It seems inappropriate to consider any of the other main recommendations.
Another reason that has been advanced for doing what the Government seek to do and resisting what we seek to do is that there is a necessity to protect debtors as to costs. In Committee, I had not looked at the scales of costs laid down under the Rules of Court under the authority of Section 47(4). I gladly acknowledge that it was only when the Solicitor-General drew attention to Order 65 in Committee that I appreciated that it was the relevant order.
Since then, I have looked at them and all that I can say is that if the costs paid


to a solicitor for doing his debt collecting in the county courts are even less than those prescribed under Order 47(4) no wonder no one wants to go into the county courts. There could not be the slightest possibility of a suggestion that the costs prescribed under Order 65 are extravagant. They are little enough for doing the job. If the county court costs for doing the same job were even less, rather than saying that that is a reason for driving people into the county courts I should be more inclined to draw the inference that it was highly necessary that county court costs should be improved. That would be very much in line with the thinking of the Prices and Incomes Board and the Wynn Committee.
What else has been advanced in favour of not doing what we seek to do in this Amendment? The Solicitor-General gave us some quotations in Committee to which I will not refer now, but he cannot have realised at the time but may have discovered since, what the position was. He suggested that there was a conflict between the views of the Austin Jones Committee and the first interim report of the Evershed Committee, one having suggested that the county court was as good as the High Court—that was the Austin Jones Committee—and the Evershed Committee having said that it thought the High Court was a bit better than the county court.
Within a few months slightly differing views were expressed by these two reports. What the Solicitor-General had overlooked was that four years later, when the Evershed Committee had had a lot more time to consider this matter, when it had had every opportunity to take account of what was contained in the Austin Jones Report and the representations made by the Association of County Court Registrars, it still thought that the distinctions we are talking about ought to be retained. It recommended that the cut-off figure be raised, but resisted the strong representations made to it that Section 47(4) should be abolished. On the contrary, it states specifically that it ought to be retained. I am not aware of anything that has happened since or anything said by any committee since to cast doubts upon that.
That leads me, naturally, to the quotation which the Solicitor-General took

from the Payne Report which he relied on as support for his proposition that Section 47(4) should go. He has probably had another look at it since and will realise that the part he quoted at Clause 43 was, unwittingly I am sure, not complete and that what the Payne Committee said was:
We are therefore of the opinion that, if the commencement of actions for recovery of debts within the county court jurisdiction is still to be allowed in the High Court and our enforcement system is to be introduced, subsection (4) of section 47 should be repealed.
We do not yet know whether the new enforcement system recommended by the Payne Committee will be adopted. Even if the decision of the Government is to adopt it, it has not yet been taken, or made public. If it has been taken and has yet to be made public it will be some time before it can be implemented. This is what I mean by saying that we should not take a recommendation out of the Report in isolation.
It is true that we can find words in the Payne Report saying that Section 47(4) should go, but when one looks at it it is part of a sentence which has two "ifs" in it. Those "ifs" represent two conditions. The first is satisfied because we are proposing to keep the two alternative methods of debt collecting specified. The second of those "ifs", if "our enforcement system is to be introduced" is something of which we have no knowledge. We do not know whether it will come about and if so when.
Whatever evidence may have been before those committees we now have a good deal of information, which ought to be of the greatest assistance in deciding the question in this Amendment. This is a Bill in which many practising lawyers have taken a considerable practical interest. They have not sat back and, after it has all been passed, written saying, "Why did you do so and so?"—a sequence of events with which we are all familiar.
In this case individuals practising in the law, the Law Society and the Under-Sheriffs' Association, singly and collectively, have put their views before the Committee, the House and the Government while there was still time to pay regard to them. It is no exaggeration to say that they all expressed the view that the High Court process of execution may,


if not always, be more efficient and suitable. Certainly, in a very large number of cases it is more suitable, effective, expeditious and only slightly more expensive, if at all, than the county court.
If that was not enough we also have the experience with a great Government Department. The House and the public know that the Department of Health and Social Security, unhappily, has to collect a great number of debts. It has to collect sums due on stamps which people have not put on cards; it has to collect overpayment, and so on. A great many of these debts are for modest sums. That Department has changed its practice of debt collecting and recently adopted the practice of starting all debt collection actions for sums of £40 or more in the High Court rather than the county court. I am told that there has been a dramatic improvement not only in the total amount recovered, but in the amount of costs recovered. I asked the Solicitor-General if he could give me the figures, but he was not able to do so. I could give them to him if he wanted them, but perhaps he now has them.
5.0 p.m.
The Solicitor-General must know that in this instance where we have debt collecting on a substantial scale and a body concerned with debt collecting on a substantial scale which has tried both—the county courts and then changed to the High Court which it has found much more expeditious and satisfactory—we should consider very carefully before depriving people other than Government Departments of those benefits.
The Crown stands in a very privileged position in relation to the costs penalty Section 47. The citizen may be subjected to costs penalties under Section 47, but it does not apply to the Crown. Therefore, the significance of what has happened to this Department is twofold. First, it provides the evidence, if we need further evidence, that what the practitioners have been telling us is right and that the High Court provides a more effective system for debt collecting. Secondly, it would be wrong to enable the Crown to go on enjoying that more favourable method of debt collecting and penalise the rest of the citizens.
For those reasons, plus others mentioned in Committee which I may have

left out inadvertently or to keep within the bounds of order, I hope that even at this eleventh hour the Government will accept that what is in issue is a modest distinction in the consequences as to costs between two types of action raising different considerations concerning court time and costs. Since there is a distinction, the law should recognise it. Cannot we do the same? Anybody else would in practice in terms of business. Usually, when there are two situations different conditions prevail in them. This distinction has been recognised for a long time without detriment to anybody and so we are told by the practitioners, much to the advantage of many. I hope that even at this eleventh hour the Government will be prepared to maintain this distinction at least until we know what is to happen about the wider recommendations of the Payne Committee and that they will accept the Amendment.

The Solicitor-General: The effect of this Amendment would be to omit the repeal of subsection (4) of Section 47 of the County Courts Act, 1959, and to substitute £75 for the figure of £40 specified in that subsection. A similar Amendment was defeated in Committee after an equally divided vote among the members. The Chairman gave his casting vote in favour of the original form of the Clause.
The costs sanctions in subsection (1) of Section 47 are subject to a number of qualifications. Among them is the provision in subsection (4) that in what is commonly called a debt-collecting action the plaintiff shall be entitled, unless otherwise ordered, to costs on such scale as may be prescribed by the Rules of the Supreme Court.
It might be helpful to the House if I were to state what is comprised in the expression "debt-collecting action" which one hears from time to time in this connection. It is, I understand, an action for a debt or liquidated demand for a sum of £40 or more where the defendant pays not less than £40 within eight days after service of the writ or the plaintiff within 28 days obtains judgment for £40 or more in default of appearance or defence or under Order 14.
The fixed costs prescribed by Appendix 3 to the Rules of the Supreme Court


Order 62 for this purpose are divided into three bands: the first, applying where the amount recovered is between £40 and £75, prescribes sums equivalent to costs on county court scale 3; the second, applying where the amount recovered is between £75 and £300, prescribes sums equivalent to costs on county scale 4; and the third, applying where the amount recovered is £300 or more, prescribes sums equivalent to High Court costs.
Originally, Section 116 of the County Courts Act, 1888, enabled the plaintiff in an action founded on contract to recover costs on the High Court scale where he obtained judgment under the Rules of the Supreme Court Order 14 for £20 or more. By Section 20 of the Administration of Justice Act, 1925, this provision was extended to the other cases mentioned in Section 47(4) of the County Courts Act, 1959. The figure of £20 remains the same until the County Court Act, 1955, substituted the present figure of £40.
It is of interest and of some importance to Members considering this matter to see it in that historical setting. The object of the last change which I mentioned was to give effect to the recommendations of the Evershed Committee on Supreme Court Practice and Procedure. In its first interim report, Cmnd. 7764, it thought and recorded in paragraph 33 that. Section 47(4) should be retained because
the procedure in the High Court is much used and in practice provides a more expeditious remedy, both in obtaining judgment and enforcing such judgment by execution, than the procedure in the county court".
It recommended only that £40 should be substituted for £20 and that further consideration should be given to reducing the fixed costs prescribed for claims above £40. It is true that it was a few months earlier than this recommendation of the Evershed Committee, in fact in April, 1959, that the Austin Jones Committee on County Court Procedure had reached the almost opposite conclusion in its final Report, Cmnd. 7668.
It said, in paragraph 105:
Where the High Court and county court possess concurrent jurisdiction there would seem to be no justification for permiting the plaintiff to involve the defendant in liability for High Court costs unless the remedy by the county court is substantially less efficient

than that provided by the High Court. In our opinion this cannot be shown".
The Payne Committee on the Enforcement of Judgment Debts agreed with the Austin Jones Committee.
The special provision made by Section 47(4) for the costs of debts collecting actions is, in our view, unjustifiable. We think that it affords a positive inducement to plaintiffs to bring in the High Court actions for which the county court is the natural and economical forum. I have statistics of judgments entered in the Central Office in 1968 which I regard as substantiating the assessment which I have just offered.
I want to consider, first, default judgments and, secondly, Order 14 judgments. Default judgments not exceeding £40 totalled 652; between £40 and £100, 7,576; between £100 and £200, 8,423; between £200 and £300, 3,821; between £300 and £400, 2,362; and exceeding £400, 9,183. Order 14 judgments not exceeding £40 numbered 28; between £40 and £100, 211; between £100 and £200, 399; between £200 and £300, 282; between £300 and £400, 196; and exceeding £400, 1,313.
Since these judgments constitute about 80 per cent. of all judgments entered in the Central Office, it is clear that subsection (4) of Section 14 largely removes the efficacy of subsection (1) as a sanction against bringing in the High Court actions which could be brought in the county court. It is only in cases to which subsection (4) does not apply—that it, actions in which less than £40 is recovered—that subsection (1) has any real deterrent effect.
The Payne Committee pointed out that the raising of the sum of £20 to £40 in 1955 had an immediate and spectacular result. That appears in paragraph 100 of Command 3909. Claims in the High Court for sums not exceeding £40 gradually disappeared and the number of district registries was drastically reduced.
In 1967, however, 56,678 actions leading to default and summary judgment were started in the High Court which could have been started in the county court. The inference was, therefore, I suggest, irresistible that a sanction which provides that no costs should be recovered on a judgment which does not exceed £X is immediately and dramatically effective, whereas a sanction limiting


the amount or scale of cost recoverable is largely futile.
Plainly, therefore, if subsection (4) is retained with the substitution of £75 for £40, debt-collecting actions will continue to be brought in the High Court for sums of £75 and upwards. To that extent, the provision in Section 47(1) depriving a plaintiff of costs if he recovers less than £100 would be rendered nugatory.
The exact number of debt-collecting actions brought in the High Court for sums between £75 and £100 is not known, but as the figures which I have given show, in 1968 7,576 default judgments and 211 judgments under Order 14 were entered in the Central Office for sums between £40 and £100. Those between £75 and £100 must have formed a substantial proportion—possibly between one-half and two-thirds—of this number.
Apart from the number of cases involved, it is wrong, we think, in principle that a plaintiff with an undefended claim should be specially privileged in costs if he sues in the High Court. If a claim is defended, there may well be justification for proceeding in the High Court, but if the claim is undefended it would be more logical to restrict, instead of enlarge, the plaintiff's entitlement to costs.
The object of the provision in the 1888 Act was, apparently, to give the plaintiff in an action of contract a special right to High Court costs when he recovered £20 or more under a procedure—the Rules of the Supreme Court, Order 14—which was not available in the county court. It is difficult to see any justification for its subsequent extension to cases in which judgment is obtained in default of appearance or defence, because exactly the same procedure is available by way of default summons in the county court.
However that may be, the Payne Committee found that the present procedure for obtaining judgment in the county court in uncontested cases is at least as expeditious as that in the High Court and, indeed, is often quicker, as the Committee said in paragraph 107 of its Report.
5.15 p.m.
The Payne Committee also found that even the current system of enforcement of summary judgments is as expeditious in the county court as in the High Court,

for the reasons given by the Austin Jones Committee. Possibly, in individual cases, solicitors may take a different view, but the Payne Committee received a substantial body of evidence and produced in Appendix 4 to its Report detailed statistics to support its conclusions. There can be little doubt that it represents the best overall assessment which has been made to date of the relative cost and efficacy of High Court and county court execution.
Since 1888 the value of money has fallen to about 16 per cent. On this basis alone, the figure of £75, which the Amendment proposes to substitute for £40 in subsection (4), is too low. It should be nearer £120. If this figure were inserted in subsection (4), there would be no point in retaining the subsection as it simply provides an exception to the general provision in subsection (1) which, as amended by the Bill, fixes £100 as the amount which a plaintiff in the High Court must recover in order to be entitled to costs.
I am, therefore, obliged to advise the House to reject the Amendment. I have tried to put the case for rejection as fairly as I can. It seems to me that there can be no practical need or logical reason for retaining subsection (4). It is with some satisfaction that I offer this crumb of comfort to the hon. and learned Member, if what I am about to say deserves that description. I am prepared to confirm to the House and to the hon. and learned Member that if Section 47(4) is repealed, which is the course I recommend, the Rule Committee will be invited to prescribe under its rule-making powers fixed costs for debt-collecting cases in the different bands mentioned in Section 47(1).

Mr. Percival: That would be from £100 upwards. I am glad that the Solicitor-General is able to give us that assurance, but I would like to make one or two comments on the points he has made, if only to place them on record for future consideration.
The hon. and learned Gentleman has referred again to the First Interim Report of the Evershed Committee. With respect, I think that it is a very bad point to take the first interim report of a committee which was issued four years before its Final Report and compare that with


the Austin Jones Committee, which published its Report three months before the First Interim Report of the Evershed Committee. Surely, if there is any substance to be found in the Evershed Committee Reports, it is in that Committee's Final Report, to which the Solicitor-General's noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor was a party, because he was a member of that Committee.
The recommendation of that Committee, despite considerable pressure that Section 47(4) should be abolished, was that it should not be abolished but, on the contrary, that the cut-off figure in it should be increased. That is precisely what we are suggesting in the Amendment. We are suggesting that the cutoff figure should be increased but that the subsection should be retained. I suggest, therefore, with respect, that if the Evershed Committee is support for either view, it is support for what we are saying in the Amendment.
I must comment on the Solicitor-General's use of the expression that the county court is the natural and economic forum. I do not know what my hon. and learned Friends who practise in the law think about this, but to me "natural forum" in this context does not mean anything. What matters when one is deciding where to bring an action is the most efficient way to do it. There is not a natural way of doing it. All ways are artificial and unnatural; they are devised by man for the benefit of man, and it is misleading to talk in terms of a natural forum. The natural forum is the one which is the better, and there are differences of opinion here as to which is the better.
I am sure that the Solicitor-General will not mind my saying that most of his reply dealt with figures. I was anxiously awaiting the end of the figures to know what inconvenience, if any, had been caused to the High Court in having to deal with that number of debt-collecting cases, but I did not detect anything in his remarks to suggest that any inconvenience had been caused. That is in accordance with all the remaining information that we have on this side of the House. It is pointless for the Solicitor-General to read out a string of figures of the number of debt-collecting cases unless there is evidence that

inconvenience has been caused to the High Court, or that its work has been impeded.
The Solicitor-General then dealt with the necessity for some cost sanction. We have never suggested that there is no necessity for cost sanction. This is another example of the Solicitor-General answering a point which we have not made, and this makes debating difficult. We agree that there should be some cost sanction, and we agree that the figure to give effect to this cost sanction must from time to time be brought up to date, and for both those reasons we put the figure of £75 in place of £45. The Solicitor-General has not dealt with the main argument in support of the Amendment, which is the distinction between debt-collecting actions and other actions.
May I take up the Solicitor-General's closing remark that it is wrong in principle for there to be some specially privileged debt-collecting litigant. This is to look at the matter completely upside down. It is no special privilege to a litigant to be able to bring his claim in the High Court. The High Courts of Justice are the Queen's courts, and they have been open to Her Majesty's subjects ever since we have had them. It is no special privilege to bring a certain kind of action in the High Court.
What has happened is that, to encourage people, if I may use the Solicitor-General's word, or to drive them, to use mine, to go to the county courts instead of the High Court, it has been the practice for a considerable time to penalise people for using the High Court if they could use the county courts. It is to stand the thing on its head if, after doing that, we talk about people being specially privileged if they are allowed to have some costs in bringing their cases in the High Court.
When we employ cost sanctions to persuade people to go to the county court, we are seeking to persuade, or to drive, them not to use that which is their right and has been for a long time. Yes, we must do it where there is good cause, but the onus lies upon the Government to justify cost sanctions, and to justify anything which makes it more difficult for a person to use the High Court. With respect, it is looking at the matter entirely in the wrong way to speak, as the


Solicitor-General spoke, of it being wrong to allow anybody to enjoy special privileges. The Amendment would not give anybody any special privileges. It would merely recognise a distinction of fact which has for a long time been recognised.
The Solicitor-General knows that normally I have considerable respect for his views, but I consider his answer to be

wholly unsatisfactory in that it did not answer the reasons put forward in support of the Amendment. I must, therefore, advise my hon. and right hon. Friends to support the Amendment in the Lobby.

Question put, That the Amendment be made—:—

The House divided: Ayes 121, Noes 146.

Division No. 352.]
AYES
[5.28 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Gower, Raymond
Percival, Ian


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Gresham Cooke, R.
Pink, R. Bonner


Awdry, Daniel
Gurden, Harold
Prior, J. M. L.


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Pym, Francis


Bell, Ronald
Hay, John
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. &amp; Fhm)
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Bessell, Peter
Holland, Philip
Ridsdale, Julian


Biffen, John
Hordern, Peter
Robson Brown, Sir William


Biggs-Davison, John
Howell, David (Guildford)
Royle, Anthony


Black, Sir Cyril
Hunt, John
Russell, Sir Ronald


Body, Richard
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Scott, Nicholas


Bossom, Sir Clive
Jopling, Michael
Scott-Hopkins, James


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Sharples, Richard


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Braine, Bernard
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Sinclair, Sir George


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Kitson, Timothy
Speed, Keith


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Stodart, Anthony


Bullus, Sir Eric
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Tapsell, Peter


Burden, F. A.
Lane, David
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Lubbock, Eric
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Temple, John M.


Carlisle, Mark
MacArthur, Ian
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross &amp; Crom'ty)
Waddington, David


Chataway, Christopher
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Maginnis, John E.
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Corfield, F. V.
Marten, Neil
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Crouch, David
Maude, Angus
Walters, Dennis


Dalkeith, Earl of
Mawby, Ray
Ward, Dame Irene


Dance, James
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Weatherill, Bernard


Dean, Paul
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Doughty, Charles
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Monro, Hector
Wiggin, A. W.


Elliott, R.W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Montgomery, Fergus
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Farr, John
More, Jasper
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Fisher, Nigel
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Woodnutt, Mark


Foster, Sir John
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Wright, Esmond


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles



Glover, Sir Douglas
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Glyn, Sir Richard
Murton, Oscar
Mr. Reginald Eyre and Mr. Anthony Grant.


Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael




Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian





NOES


Albu, Austen
Concannon, J. D.
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Conlan, Bernard
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Allen, Scholefield
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Freeson, Reginald


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Garrett, W. E.


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Dickens, James
Ginsburg, David


Bacon, Fit. Hn. Alice
Dobson, Ray
Gregory, Arnold


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Doig, Peter
Grey, Charles (Durham)


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Driberg, Tom
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)


Bidwell, Sydney
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)


Blackburn, F.
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
English, Michael
Hamling, William


Booth, Albert
Ennals, David
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)


Boyden, James
Ensor, David
Hazell, Bert


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Heffer, Eric S.


Buchan, Norman
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Hobden, Dennis


Butter, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Horner, John


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Fernyhough, E.
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Chapman, Donald
Finch, Harold
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)


Coe, Denis
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)


Coleman, Donald
Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir Eric(Islington, E.)
Howie, W.




Hoy, Rt. Hn. James
Manuel, Archie
Rose, Paul


Huckfield, Leslie
Mapp, Charles
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Ryan, John


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Sheldon, Robert


Hynd, John
Mendelson, John
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Short, Mrs. Renée(W'hampton, N.E.)


Janner, Sir Barnett
Molloy, William
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Moonman, Eric
Silverman, Julius


Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Slater, Joseph


Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Small, William


Judd, Frank
Morris, John (Aberavon)
Snow, Julian


Kelley, Richard
Moyle, Roland
Spriggs, Leslie


Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Newens, Stan
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Oram, Albert E.
Taverne, Dick


Leadbitter, Ted
Orbach, Maurice
Urwin, T. W.


Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Orme, Stanley
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Lestor, Miss Joan
Oswald, Thomas
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Owen, Will (Morpeth)
Wallace, George


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Padley, Walter
White, Mrs. Eirene


Loughlin, Charles
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Whitlock, William


Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Palmer, Arthur
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


McBride, Neil
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


McCann, John
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


MacColl, James
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
Woof, Robert


McGuire, Michael
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)



Mackie, John
Rankin, John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Rees, Merlyn
Mr. James Hamilton and Mr. Joseph Harper.


MacPherson, Malcolm
Roebuck, Roy



Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)



Mallalieu, J. P. W.(Huddersfield, E.)

Amendment made: No. 7, in page 3, line 20, leave out '£150' and insert '£100'.—[The Solicitor-General.]

Clause 10

POWER TO RAISE LIMITS OF JURISDICTION

Mr. Percival: I beg to move Amendment No. 9, in page 6, line 8, leave out '52'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): With this Amendment, we will also discuss Amendment No. 10, in page 6, leave out line 13.

Mr. Percival: To appreciate why these Amendments are necessary it is as well to recall what has been done about the jurisdiction of the county courts.
The Bill seeks to do two things in relation to county court jurisdiction. First, power is given to increase the jurisdiction by Order in Council without any limit. This is not departure of principle in regard to jurisdiction. What is new is that power is now to be given by Order in Council without limit. Previously, there was a quite modest limit to the amount by which the jurisdiction could be increased without the necessity to come to the House for further statutory powers.
Secondly, it is now possible to use this power to increase the jurisdiction by Order in Council in relation to many

more of the provisions of the principal Act than was the case before the Bill was embarked upon.
I wish to draw attention to line 8, in page 6 of the Bill, which I seek to amend by Amendment No. 9. Like a great deal of current legislation, the provision is totally unintelligible unless one looks at the principal Act which is being amended and examines all the relevant provisions. Section 192 of the old Act said that the Lord Chancellor could by Order in Council increase the jurisdiction by certain specified amounts. In Section 192(2), Parliament specified those cases to which the Lord Chancellor's power to increase the jurisdiction applied. In the proposed subsection, we find words which are to replace Section 192(2).
Under the old Section 192, the Lord Chancellor's powers to increase the jurisdiction applied to Sections 39, 40, 41, 44, 45 and 47, but they did not apply to Section 52. If the Bill is passed in its present form, Section 52 will be included amongst the jurisdictions in which the Lord Chancellor has power to increase the amount by Order in Council, so it is of some interest to look at Section 52 and see what it does.
Section 52 of the County Courts Act, 1959 deals with the equity jurisdiction of the county court. Until now, the amounts in Section 52 have been £500 and £30. In some instances, the amount which determined that the county court


had jurisdiction was £500. In others, it was £30. That £500 was very much in line with the old county court jurisdiction in contract and tort, which was also £500.
Whereas the jurisdiction of the county court in matters of contract and tort has been increased from £500 to £750, in cases of equity it has been increased from £500 to £5,000. We discussed in Committee whether it was right to increase the jurisdiction to £5,000 and, having agreed to that enormous increase in the county court jurisdiction in equity matters, we have to consider whether it is right to go even further and say that it may not be enough and that the Lord Chancellor should be given power to increase that by Order in Council at any time and by any amount.
Since no Amendment to the first part of the Clause has been called, it follows that, after the Bill has a Third Reading, the Lord Chancellor will have power to increase the jurisdiction by Order in Council without any limit being put on the figure. If we pass line 8 of the Clause without this Amendment, he will have that power in relation to the new equity jurisdiction which we have already increased to £5,000. On the spur of the moment, I cannot divide 750 into 5,000, but it must represent an increase of something like 600 or 700 per cent. In other words, we have increased the jurisdiction in equity matters to 6 or 7 times the amount in the common law jurisdiction.
Surely that is enough for the time being. Why should this House think it necessary to bring into the ambit of the Lord Chancellor's power to increase the jurisdiction by Order in Council the equity jurisdiction which so far has never been within that ambit, especially when Parliament already is proposing to increase that jurisdiction to £5,000? I need only take the one illustration to make the point. The arguments in connection with Amendment No. 10 are the same.
I have referred already to the great assistance which has been given to us by the Law Society. So often, people wait until a Measure is passed before asking why. I welcome the practice of interested parties writing to hon. Members on both sides and raising their doubts and difficulties while there is still time for the

House to deal with them. In this one instance, we see how it has proved to be of real benefit.
5.45 p.m.
This point is urged upon us by the Law Society which, after all, represents practising solicitors. Its views are not only worth consideration but must be given great weight. The Law Society does not expect the Government to accept everything that it suggests, and I am sure that the Government will agree that the number of points in which the Law Society has persisted has grown smaller as the Bill has proceeded, just as the number of points taken from this side of the House has. However, as we get further through the procedures, it becomes more and more necessary to single out a small number of matters to press.
In this case, the Law Society has felt so strongly about it that it has persisted in putting forward the view that it is enough to increase the equity jurisdiction to £5,000. The way to do it is to delete the reference to Section 52 from line 8 and let the equity jurisdiction be dealt with, as it has been until now, separately rather than under this all-embracing power.
Even at this late stage, I hope that the Government will think for once that perhaps the practitioners know better and may have a good point. There is no question of principle involved, and there will be no loss of face by any Department or Law Officer. By accepting this Amendment, the Government would show merely that they agreed that the people who practise here have a point. I hope that on this occasion the Government will take that line.

Mr. J. T. Price: The hon. and learned Member for Southport (Mr. Percival) has made a very efficient analysis of this knotty business which laymen perhaps do not appreciate as keenly as practising solicitors and barristers. But there is one point I venture to raise in this short intervention.
Since the Law Society has criticised the proposal now on the Order Paper, that if the Bill remains unamended it will increase the jurisdiction of the county court in equity matters, could my hon. and learned Friend say what calculation has been made about the effect of these Amendments on litigants?
We all know that costs in the county court are less than in the High Court and the Crown Court. I should like to know whether this jurisdiction, or this discretion which is granted to the Lord Chancellor to produce an Order in Council increasing the limit, would, in the end result, have a beneficial effect for litigants who have to pay the costs of contested proceedings in any court, whether it be the county court or the High Court.
I am always a bit sceptical of professional representations on these matters which are usually directed to getting cases, wherever possible, tried in the highest court where the highest scale fees are payable. After all, the Law Society, without saying anything discreditable about it, is a fine professional body —a finely organised trade union—and anything which is inimical or unfavourable to the interests of practising lawyers who conduct cases in the courts is naturally put under scrutiny.
I do not wish to intervene any further. However, as this affects the costs payable in litigation when cases have to be taken into court, we should have the views of a Government spokesman on this aspect of the matter.

Mr. Waddington: I rise to support my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Percival). I look with a certain amount of dismay at the prospect of the Government coming to this House late tonight and asking us, after a short debate, to approve such an important proposal as, for instance, a massive increase in the equity jurisdiction of the county court.
There is far too much of this legislation by Order. Too often we do not get the opportunity of ventilating our opinions on important matters because they are brought before the House late at night, a debate takes place for perhaps an hour and a half, and they are over and done with. That is not good enough. This is a good example of the Government taking powers to bring about sweeping changes without giving the opportunity for sufficient discussion by this House.

The Solicitor-General: I acknowledge that there is some substance in the argument that, when we are raising the county

court equity jurisdiction to such a high new limit as £50,000, it is unnecessary to give in addition, to that substantial provision, a further power to increase the jurisdiction by Order of the Lord Chancellor.
I do not accept the stricture of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Waddington). There is nothing highhanded about our treatment or approach to this matter. I have viewed this issue with a certain absence of passion. It is desirable, on the whole, to have some element of uniformity relating to powers such as we are considering here to increase the jurisdiction by Order. I have a short argument to offer to the House on the basis of unformity which I should like to think will persuade it that, acknowledging the strength of the argument which has been offered, it is best to leave the Bill in its present form.
Before coming to that, I should like to deal with what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price). He was right about this matter as, in my experience, he is right about most things. It is true that the extension in this fashion of the county court jurisdiction is likely to have a beneficial effect upon parties in terms of costs. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to attach importance to that.
The effect of these Amendments would be to delete Section 52 of the County Courts Act 1959 and Section 113(3) of the Settled Land Act, 1925, from the list of provisions under which the jurisdiction may be further increased by Order in Council subject to affirmative Resolution.
Section 52(1) gives a county court jurisdiction to hear and determine seven types of equity proceedings where the sum involved does not exceed £500. The effect of the Bill is to increase that sum to £5,000.
Section 113(3) of the Settled Land Act, 1925, provides that the powers of the court under the Act may be exercised by the county court where the land does not exceed £500 in capital value or £30 in net annual value for rating. Clause 5 increases those sums to £5,000 and £300 respectively.
The limit of £500 has remained unchanged since equity jurisdiction was first conferred on the county courts in 1865. Since then the value of money has fallen


to less than 18 per cent. It follows that the new limit of £5,000 is, therefore, a good deal higher than can be justified solely by the fall in the value of money—I acknowledge that entirely—and it is unlikely that it would need to be raised again in the near future.
On the other hand, it is the same as the limit of the jurisdiction conferred on the county court by Section 7 of the Family Provision Act, 1966, to order provision to be made out of the estate of a deceased person for the maintenance of his or her spouse or child under the Inheritance (Family Provision) Act, 1948, or for the maintenance of a former spouse under Section 26 of the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1965. As this limit can be raised by order of the Lord Chancellor, there are, in my view and in my recommendation to the House, sensible, not controversial, grounds for saying that the limit of the equity jurisdiction ought also to be capable of being raised by Order without legislation. That is the point that I make, and I dare say that it is fairly narrowly balanced.
The argument could be deployed and developed that, as a matter of principle, there is something of great importance in this conferment of a right to increase jurisdiction by Order. I do not deny that importance attaches to it, but Parliament is watchful. That course has been resorted to in the other circumstances to which I have referred, and I hope that on the whole the hon. and learned Gentleman and his hon. Friend will think that the wisest course is to let this proposal pass. It is a narrow issue. I do not for a moment reject out of hand the argument which has been presented. I see the force of it, but there is, none the less, some importance to be attached to applying evenly the same concept of a right to alter jurisdiction by Order.
On balance, I invite the House to say that in this instance it is better so done.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Percival: With the leave of the House, I should like to make one or two points.
I often agree with what the Solicitor-General says about the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price), that he is very often right, but, looking the hon. Gentleman in the eye, I can say that this time he is wrong. It is a mistake to

assume that county court costs are reasonable and therefore that any costs that are higher than county court costs are good for solicitors or for anybody else. This overlooks the history of the matter. The county court started as the poor man's court, and its scale of costs was designed in that spirit. It was the poor man's court, and the professionals who appeared in them had to accept that and be scantily remunerated for so doing.
We have got away from the day when the county court was the poor man's court. We have raised the jurisdiction so much that it is now a different kind of court altogether, and the time has come to look at county court costs from a different point of view, from the simple point of view of whether they provide reasonable remuneration. The hon. Member for Westhoughton looks as though he is about to intervene. I shall gladly give way to him in a moment.
What I have said is not something that I have thought up. All that came from the Evershed Committee, of which the noble and learned viscount the present Lord Chancellor was a member. That Committee considered raising the limit of the jurisdiction of county courts from £100 to £200, and it recommended the increase, but only on the basis that we have to get out of thinking of the county court as the poor man's court, out of thinking of costs scales in that sort of way. The Committee's recommendation was based on the assumption and belief that reasonable remuneration would be paid to solicitors who conducted cases in those courts.

Mr. J. T. Price: It is true that the county court was originally regarded as the poor man's court, just as the public school was once regarded as the rich man's place for having his son educated. Both institutions have now become something different, but there is a second important point.
The High Court is overcrowded with actions in tort and other matters, and there are long delays in hearing cases. If there were no better reason for raising the jurisdiction of the county court, surely we must accept that all the courts, at whatever level they are, should be fully used? We cannot allow congestion in the High Court, and empty spaces in the lower court. From that point of view a good deal could be said about this


issue, and if I had the time to say it I should be prepared to do so on another occasion.

Mr. Percival: And on another Amendment. Had the hon. Gentleman been a member of our Committee, that speech could have been made on certain of the Amendments.
There are arguments both ways about the level of the jurisdiction from the point of view of which the hon. Gentleman spoke previously. I should not like him to think that anything that I said was intended to take him to task. I do not think that it could be, because he did not say anything of that earlier. As I introduced the Law Society, it appeared to me that I had left the society open to the comments that were made about it, and as the hon. Member for Westhoughton was, for once, less than just and generous, I felt it right to express a contrary view.
It is time that we in this House considered the question of county court costs from a wholly different point of view from that which has been in our minds up to now. As I said, the county court was founded originally for the poor man. The original scales of costs were fixed with that in mind. We must get that out of our minds now. What we ought to think of now is not whether county court costs are higher or lower than High Court costs. What we ought to be considering is whether county court costs are reasonable remuneration for what they cover, and whether High Court costs are reasonable remuneration. It may be that in some cases work in the county court is more difficult, and that costs ought to be higher. One ought also to bear in mind that the Prices and Incomes Board had said that the present county court scales are not reasonable remuneration for solicitors, and that it has recommended a substantial increase. We ought to bear that in mind when we talk about solicitors deciding which court they go to. It is not as easy as it may seem at first sight.
I agree with the Solicitor-General that this is perhaps fairly finely balanced, just as is our Amendment No. 12. I shall accede to the Solicitor-General's suggestion, in the hope that he will accede to my suggestion when we come to that Amendment. There are arguments both

ways on the Amendment now under discussion. I am not inclined to press the argument any further. I hope that the Solicitor-General will show similar reasonableness on our next Amendment. I propose to accept the Solicitor-General's suggestion, and I therefore beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 12

GRANT OF CERTIFICATE BY TRIAL JUDGE

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move Amendment No. 11, in page 6, line 38, at end insert:
'and
(c) that all the parties to the proceedings consent to the grant of a certificate under this section,'.
The object of the Amendment is to reinstate the provision deleted in Committee that a leapfrog certificate can be granted only where all the parties to the proceedings consent. Part II of the Bill is based broadly on the scheme proposed by the Evershed Committee in paragraphs 483 to 504 of its Final Report for enabling an appeal from a High Court judgment to go, in certain circumstances, direct to the House of Lords, thereby by-passing, or leapfrogging as the phrase is, the Court of Appeal.
The Committee recommended that the scheme should be confined initially to cases involving a point of law of public importance which either related to a question of statutory construction, or was covered by a previous decision of the Court of Appeal. The Committee envisaged that it would be for the trial judge to certify that the case was fit to go direct to the House of Lords. It did not think it necessary that there should be a consent by both parties to the litigation, although it was to be expected that in the great majority of cases in which the scheme would operate it would do so with the consent of both parties. That is made clear in paragraph 502(b) and (e) of its report.
Before the Bill was introduced it was represented to my noble Friend by Lord Reid that if the consent of the parties were not required there would be a danger, having regard to the state of judicial business in the House of Lords, that that House might become overloaded with leapfrogging appeals. It


was accordingly decided to make the consent of the parties a condition precedent to the grant of a certificate by the trial judge. I have put that part of the history shortly, but that is substantially what occurred.
When the Bill was in another place it was strongly urged that the House of Lords should be the deciding authority and not the trial judge, as the Evershed Committee had recommended. The suggestion was made that as the application for a leapfrog certificate had to be made by consent, it should be possible for the Appeal Committee to determine it on the papers and so avoid the delay and expense which the Evershed Committee feared might result if the House of Lords were made the deciding authority. That appears in paragraph 490 of the report.
At a meeting which the Committee had with my noble Friend, this suggestion proved acceptable to the Lords of Appeal and the Bill was accordingly amended in another place so as to limit the trial judge's function to certifying that the case was a proper one for an application to be made to the Appeal Committee for leave to appeal directly to the House of Lords. Clause 13(3) provides that such an application shall be determined without a hearing.
In Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Sir Eric Fletcher) suggested that the effect of giving the House of Lords the last word was to invalidate the reason for requiring the consent of the parties. The remedy against being flooded by leapfrogging appeals would be in their Lordships' own hands, since they could reject applications simply on the ground of pressure of business. In my right hon. Friend's view, as I understood it, the question whether a leapfrog certificate ought to be granted should be left to the discretion of the trial judge, who could take into account the reason for any objection by a party to the granting of a certificate. He thought that if consent were required it might be withheld for the purpose of putting pressure on the other side.
We have considered with the greatest care the arguments on this point. The cogency of the argument of my right hon. Friend to which I have just referred depends on whether the situation is regarded from the point of view of the successful or the unsuccessful party

before the trial judge. If he is the unsuccessful party he may feel aggrieved if the successful party, having, for all one knows, greater economic resources than he, refuses his consent to leapfrog, solely in order to put the unsuccessful party to the trouble and expense of going first to the Court of Appeal.
If, however, it is the unsuccessful party who has the greater economic resources, should not the successful party be able to say that he does not want to go to the expense of fighting an appeal to the House of Lords before the validity of the judgment that he has already obtained has been tested in the Court of Appeal? As my right hon. Friend suggested, it could be left to the trial judge to take into account the party's reasons for not wanting to leapfrog.
But if this were done there is the danger that the trial judge would simply grant the certificate knowing that the party's objections could afterwards be considered by the Appeal Committee. The result might be that the Appeal Committee would not only have more applications to consider, but, under Clause 13(3), would have to determine the dispute on the documents without a hearing. An application for leave to appeal to the House of Lords under the Administration of Justice (Appeals) Act, 1934, is heard only when the Lords of Appeal can be spared from the ordinary judicial business of the House of Lords. This means that there is usually a delay of one or two months, and sometimes considerably longer, before the application for leave to appeal can be heard. If applications for leave to leapfrog were not restricted by a requirement of consent and the Appeal Committee were forced to determine disputed applications there would be a danger of the Appeal Committees being overloaded just as it was feared that under the Evershed Committee's scheme the House of Lords might be swamped with leapfrogging appeals.
Moreover, it would be most unsatisfactory for the Appeal Committee to have to deal with disputed applications on the papers alone. It would, at least, be necessary for the papers to contain the submissions of the parties, and this might lead to their being quite lengthy. Often, no doubt, they would be settled by counsel, and this would mean added expense.
Another danger of allowing a leapfrog application to be made otherwise than by consent was alluded to by Lord Reid in the Second Reading of the Bill in another place, when he used the expression "the most impossible problems", in referring to those problems that would arise in the event of attempting to force an unwilling respondent who might be a man of quite moderate means to go straight to the House of Lords. The noble Lord expressed the view that at present it was the right practice to allow an application for an appeal to be brought to their Lordships and for conditions often to be imposed as to costs. He thought that that procedure could be extended, but he said that it would be extremely difficult to safeguard a respondent of moderate means if there were any proposal that he should be brought to the House of Lords against his will.
Like one or two other matters that we have had to consider in our treatment of the Bill, this is a fairly narrowly balanced point. I come to a conclusion contrary to that thought to be right by my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East with reluctance, because I know that he felt strongly about this, and he has put his argument very cogently and persuasively. But having weighed all these factors, our conclusion is that, on the whole, it is best that the element of consent to the granting of a certificate under the Clause should be present, and I recommend that course to the House.

Sir Eric Fletcher: I am sure that the House will be grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for the fullness and care with which he has addressed arguments to the House in support of the Amendment. As he said, it is a highly technical and somewhat abstruse and narrowly balanced question. The House should be aware that what the Government are asking us to do is to reverse a decision of the Committee which considered the Bill in some detail, and to restore to the Bill a subsection which the Committee on the Bill, by an overwhelming majority, and with the support of hon. Members on both sides of the House, thought undesirable. The Solicitor-General also referred to the fact that what he is now asking the House to do is something contrary to the recommendation of the Evershed Committee, which

also—a number of years ago—went into this question very fully and came to a totally different conclusion.
I do not propose to weary the House again. Both in the Second Reading debate and in Committee I indicated the reasons why I believe that the Amend- is unnecessary and unsatisfactory. I am totally unconvinced by the speech to which we have just listened. The arguments which have been put forward have been dictated by their Lordships in another place, and we in this House are being asked not merely to overrule the decision of the very well-informed Committee which dealt with this Bill but to bow to the supposedly superior wisdom of their Lordships on this matter.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Democracy.

Sir E. Fletcher: Hon. Members may make what comments they like on this aspect of the matter. I think it would be futile at this late stage of the proceedings to reiterate what I have said before, but I repeat that I am totally unconvinced by the arguments which have just been addressed to us.
I console myself with the thought that the whole of these proceedings on Clauses 12 and 13 for the so-called leapfrogging procedure are in the nature of an experiment. I hope very much that they will succeed. I believe they will contribute quite substantially to a reduction in the costs of litigation. I very much hope that after a short interval the success of the experiment will be reviewed, and perhaps on review the course which I have argued on Second Reading and in Committee will find favour so that when this matter comes up for renewal the experiment can be extended in the way I have suggested.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 20

ORDERS FOR INTERIM PAYMENT

Mr. Daniel Awdry: I beg to move Amendment No. 12, in page 13, line 7, leave out 'in such circumstances as may be specified in the rules'.

Mr. Speaker: I suggest that at the same time we can discuss Amendment


No. 13, in page 13, line 12, at end insert:
'in the circumstances following, that is to say where, but only where:—
(a) the defendant has admitted full liability; or
(b) the full liability of the defendant has been established by the entry of interlocutory damages to be assessed; or
(c) if the action proceeded to trial the plaintiff would be bound to succeed wholly on the issue of liability; and
(d) in every such case the defendant, or if, there be more than one defendant each of the defendants, is covered in respect of the claim made by the plaintiff by a valid contract of insurance or is a public body or authority or other substantial corporation'.

Mr. Awdry: As you suggest, Mr. Speaker, I should like also to refer to Amendment No. 13.
We have now reached Clause 20 which gives powers to the Rules Committee to make rules enabling the court to order interim payments in certain cases. This follows the recommendations of the Winn Committee as set out in Section IV of its Report. We on this side of the House welcome the suggestions of the Winn Committee which will relieve a great deal of the hardship. From my own experience in dealing with personal injury cases, I know that a family can suffer great hardship if the main breadwinner is unable to work because of an accident and the insurance company which insures the defendant is not prepared to pay any amount on account of damages.
I can think of a case in which I was personally involved where a man was nearly totally paralysed in a car accident and there was no dispute on the issue of negligence. The other driver was wholly to blame and no one sought to deny it. Nevertheless the insurance company was not prepared to make any payment on account until the final medical assessments were available, and this took a long time. Equally clearly, justice must be accorded to defendants who have a valid defence to the action. Nothing must be done to prejudice their position.
The Winn Committee came to the conclusion that there were three classes of cases in which interim payments were appropriate. These were set out in paragraph 85 of the Winn Committee's Report, which I will quickly read:

There are three classes of cases in which Orders for interim payments may be made without causing any prejudice or injustice to the defendant:—
(a) Where the defendant has admitted full liability either by his pleading or otherwise on credible evidence of such admission;
(b) Where the liability of the defendant has been established by the entry of interlocutory judgment for damages to be assessed;
(c) Where, if the action proceeded to trial, the plaintiff would be bound to succeed wholly on the issue of liability without any discount for fault on his part or on the part of any person in respect of whose injury or death the claim of the plaintiff arises."
Later on, in paragraph 96, the Winn Committee deals with the problem which arises where a defendant is uninsured. The Committee came to the conclusion that the power to make interim payments should be confined to cases where the defendant or, if there were more than one defendant, all the defendants were covered by insurance.
Clause 20 gives a totally general power to the Rules Committee to make rules giving the courts jurisdiction to order interim payments. We on this side of the House say that this House should establish in the Bill the exact criteria upon which the Rules Committee should work. That is precisely what we have done in tabling this Amendment. We have stated that interim payments should be ordered only in one of the three circumstances described in paragraph 85 of the Winn Report—the paragraph I have just read out—and only then if the defendant or, in the case of joint defendants, all the defendants are insured. In other words, in tabling the Amendment we have carefully followed the recommendations of the Winn Committee.
In case there should be any misunderstanding about our motives, may I say that it is not a fact that we have no confidence in the Rules Committee, although I might add that some solicitors have very little confidence at present in the Rules Committee. But that is not our motive. It is that we wish to criticise the Lord Chancellor, who incidentally appears to have very great or indeed absolute power in the Rules Committee. It is our view that this House should lay down the basis on which the rules are made.
Luckily for us, the Solicitor-General understands and sympathises with our


views, because in the Standing Committee he went a long way to help us. He said:
I understand and have some sympathy for the argument that it is often, and perhaps usually, desirable that, where responsibilities are referred to a body like the Rules Committee, the criteria that Parliament wants the Committee to apply should be spelled out in the Bill. Even as a principle, however, that should not be accepted without qualification, because we all have experience of the risks that there are in attempts to go too far to define Parliament's wishes and the way in which it wants a Committee to perform its duties."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 24th April, 1969; c. 125.]
I accept that this is a matter of judgment. It is, to use an expression that we have heard earlier today, a finely balanced argument. But I cannot see any risks at all—if there are any risks I invite the Solicitor-General to tell us what they are—in defining the wishes of the House as we have tried to do in this Amendment.
The Solicitor-General may remind us that when the rules are made by the Committee they will be brought to this House for approval. He may argue that this may meet our point because if we do not like the rules we can vote against them. But, as the House knows, under the Standing Orders of this House we have no power to amend the rules when they come here. We either have to accept them in toto or reject them in toto. Clearly we do not want to reject them altogether because we approve entirely of the principle of interim payments. The truth is that the House will have no effective control over the rules once they come here. That is why we say that the criteria on which the rules are to be based should clearly be written into this Bill.
I hope the Solicitor-General will see our point of view which I have tried to put as reasonably as I can. I repeat what my hon. and learned Friend said a few moments ago. We hope that on this occasion the Solicitor-General will meet us and not oppose the Amendment.

6.30 p.m.

The Solicitor-General: The issue here is, I think, fairly narrowly balanced, and the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Awdry) has recommended the Amendments with the moderation which one has come to expect from him, but, with

respect, they would impose an over-rigid series of criteria, even applying the standards to which I have been quoted as referring in Standing Committee.
Amendment No. 13 follows closely—one understands what has been in hon. Gentlemen's minds in this connection—the language of the Winn Committee. It is intended that the rules should give effect, broadly, to that Committee's recommendations. It is felt desirable, however, that the Rules Committee should be given some latitude in defining the circumstances in which an order for interim payments may be made. To restrict the rule-making power by using, as the Amendment does to a marked extent, though not entirely, the precise wording of the Winn Committee's Report would, in my judgment, be undesirable, for reasons which I think it right now to deploy.
In paragraph 85(a) of its Report, the Winn Committee referred to the case comprised in paragraph (a) of Amendment No. 13, in which the defendant has admitted full liability. It is to be observed that the word "full" does not appear in the summary of conclusions and recommendations on page 38 of the Winn Committee's Report or in the draft rules in Appendix 6. I draw attention to that; it is an interesting discrepancy. It is not clear whether the defendant should have admitted liability for the whole amount of the plaintiff's claim or whether it would be sufficient for him to have admitted liability for part of the claim, provided that he did not raise any issue of contributory negligence or plead any set-off or counterclaim. There is a doubt there.
In paragraph 85(b), the Winn Committee referred to the case adumbrated by paragraph (b) of Amendment No. 13, the case in which the liability of the defendant has been established by the entry of interlocutory judgment for damages to be assessed. The word "interlocutory" does not appear in the draft rules in Appendix 6 to the Committee's Report, and it is doubtful whether the phrase "entry of interlocutory judgment" is apt to describe obtaining judgment upon a trial of liability ordered before trial of damages, which is one of the most important cases mentioned in paragraph 86 of the Report as falling under this head.
In paragraph 85(c), the Winn Committee referred to a case in which, if the action proceeded to trial, the plaintiff would be bound to succeed wholly on the issue of liability. It did not say whether, if there were two or more defendants, the plaintiff would have to show that he would be bound to succeed against each of them. It is clear, however, from paragraph 90 of its Report and the draft rules in Appendix 6 that the Committee thought that it should be sufficient for the plaintiff to show that he would be bound to succeed against any one of them.
Full consideration must be given to the question whether a court ought to be empowered in these circumstances to make an order for interim payments against the other defendant or defendants. This must now be left to rules, but the Rules Committee ought not to have to consider first whether the case comes within the ambit of its rule-making powers, as it would have to do if the Amendments were passed.
In paragraph 96 of its Report, the Winn Committee make it an over-riding condition of the power to order interim payments that the defendant, or all the defendants, are covered by a valid contract of insurance in respect of the plaintiff's claim or are public bodies or authorities or other substantial corporations. These expressions, while affording an adequate guide to the Committee's intention, are much too vague to be used in a Statute defining rule-making powers. In the draft rules in Appendix 6, the reference to a substantial corporation becomes a reference to a body having adequate assets to meet the plaintiff's claim. It is, I suggest, plainly better to leave this matter to the Rules Committee.
There is a danger also that, if the circumstances in which provision may be made for an order for interim payments are defined in the Bill by reference to the recommendations of the Winn Committee, they will not be apt for cases other than actions for personal injuries, which the Clause is intended to cover.
I have put forward what I hope the House will regard as convincing arguments why in this respect the rule-making powers under the Clause ought not to be subject to such rigid criteria as are

set out in the Amendment. I realise that I am not giving anything away under this head and that I am resisting an Amendment when it has been suggested that, in view of an earlier disposition shown by hon. and learned Members opposite, it might be thought gallant and proper to yield. But I regard the arguments against the Amendments as too overwhelming for such dalliance to be permitted, and I ask the House to reject them. The criteria asked for in this instance are much too exact, even, as I say, applying the standards which I ventured to refer to on the earlier occasion. I hope that, with the reasonableness which is a characteristic of the hon. Member for Chippenham, he will think it wise to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. Percival: To borrow a phrase which you used the other day, Mr. Speaker, it seems that we have been too good-humoured in debate. Our good will on a previous Amendment is not to bring home the chestnuts on this one, if I may adopt that colloquialism. I do not propose to be particularly good-humoured in what I now have to say. It does not surprise me greatly that our gesture has not produced the result which it might have done, for we accept that there are technical difficulties here, and, with that in mind, I shall in a few moments take a certain course.
I am disappointed by the Solicitor-General's reply. We had hoped that something more useful than mere agreement that this is a technically difficult matter might have emerged from the debate. We wish to make as clear as we can from this side that we dislike in principle legislation by the Rules Committee. If the law is to be changed, it should be changed by the House, not by the Rules Committee. We dislike a piece of legislation such as Clause 20 which, if it remains unamended, says merely that there shall be a certain change in the law and leaves it to the Rules Committee to say what the change shall be.
We are not happy with the Clause as it stands because it passes to the Rules Committee part of the job of the House. We are not happy about it because of the power which the Lord Chancellor has over the Rules Committee. In saying that, I mean no reference to the present holder of that office. I refer to the Lord


Chancellor as the holder for the time being of that office. As was demonstrated recently, he has power of veto in the Rules Committee. No doubt that is very desirable, and it is acceptable when that Committee is dealing with rules, but it is not acceptable when the Committee is making new laws.
Furthermore, we do not like the situation because of the absence of any procedure by which the House can amend rules which come before it for consideration. I have no doubt that the Rules Committee, which will be given this job —because we cannot press our Amendment—will do the best it can, but there is no special reason to suppose that the House ought to agree to everything which the Committee puts in the rules. It would be much more reasonable to suppose that the House may well have some different views on some of the details of the rules and that its disagreement may be reasonable and well-informed. But under the procedure of the House, however strongly the House—or at least this side of it—felt that it would like to see some of the rules in a slightly different form, there would be nothing that the House could do about it. Those are the main reasons why we are not happy about what is being done in Clause 20.
Another reason why we are far from satisfied with the Solicitor-General's reply and much worse humoured than we were earlier is that I am bothered by what the Solicitor-General said when he objected to our Amendment on the ground that it seeks to impose over-rigid criteria. I accept that our Amendment will not stand as close analysis as it would need to stand before the House could accept it, because there are technical difficulties which must be covered. But we had thought—I believe rightly—that the criteria postulated in our Amendment were entirely in line with those of the Winn Committee. If the Solicitor-General believes that in the Amendment we were seeking to impose over-rigid criteria, that leads inevitably to the conclusion that he has in mind that the rules which emerge from the Rules Committee will entitle and enable the court to make payments out in circumstances considerably wider than those recommended in the Winn Committee and in the Amendment. We must

anticipate that by a procedure which allows us no scope for amending we shall get rules which go wider than the recommendations of the Winn Committee. That is a further reason why we are unhappy about what the Solicitor-General said.
But, coming back to where I started, I accept that technically our Amendment is not good enough. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 33

INTERPRETATION, APPLICATION TO CROWN, AND PROVISIONS AS TO ORDERS

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move Amendment No. 14, in page 22, line 30, after "brought", insert "by or",

Mr. Speaker: With this Amendment we shall take Amendment No. 15.

The Solicitor-General: These are little more than drafting Amendments designed to make it clear that Clause 20, which deals with orders for interim payments, and Clause 22, which deals with interest on damages, are to bind the Crown not only in proceedings brought against the Crown but also in proceedings brought by the Crown which result in judgment against the Crown in a counter-claim. Clause 33(3) provides that Clause 20 shall bind the Crown so far as any proceedings to which that Clause is applicable can be brought against the Crown in accordance with the Crown Proceedings Act, 1947, and that Clause 22 shall bind the Crown so far as Section 3 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1934, applies to proceedings against the Crown.
By virtue of Section 24(3) of the Act of 1947 the reference to proceedings against the Crown could be construed as references only to proceedings in which the Crown was a defendant. Although Section 38(2) of the Crown Proceedings Act, 1947, defines proceedings against the Crown as including a claim by way of a set off or counter claim raised in proceedings by the Crown, this definition will not apply to that expression when used in another Act such as the present Bill. In order to achieve the same result the Amendments insert the words "by or" before the words "against the Crown"


in the two places in which they appear in Clause 33(3).

Amendment agreed to.

6.45 p.m.

Further Amendment made: Amendment No. 15, in page 22, line 34, at end insert by or'.—[The Solicitor-General.]

Schedule 2

REPEALS

Amendment made: No. 16, in page 25, line 19, column 3, at end insert:
Section 153.—[The Solicitor-General.]

Title

Amendment made: No. 17, in Title, line 20, at end insert 'and the making of second and subsequent grants,'.—[The Solicitor-General.]

Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Queen's consent signified]

6.48 p.m.

Mr. Percival: We have examined many of the technicalities of the Bill at great length, with some changes, few enough, I hope with some advantage. It is right that Bills such as this, which seem so technical that they cannot possibly be of interest to anyone except a lawyer, should be recognised as Bills which have as much effect on the individual layman as does most of the other legislation which goes through the House.
I am one of those who take the view that there is nothing more important than the proper administration of justice and that the House has a good deal to answer for in the headaches which it provides to those who have to administer justice when it passes legislation of such a character that sometimes more time is spent in working out what it means after it has left the House than was spent while it was going through the House. I hope, therefore, that it will be felt that the time spent in examining the Bill and doing our utmost to get it right has been well spent.
I echo a plea which I made on the first Amendment today, which I hope and believe is relevant to Third Reading —that if the Bill is given a Third Reading I hope that we may call a short halt in what we are doing to courts and in connection with the administration of justice

and have a comprehensive look at what we are doing. In the Bill we do a little relating to the jurisdiction of the county courts, a little relating to appeals to the House of Lords and a little relating to interim payments.
In the background we have the several reports to which I referred earlier. I do not think that we have yet implemented all the recommendations of the Evershed Committee. Some of them come near to what we are doing here. The Winn Committee recommendations are, in part, implemented in the Bill. It is said that the Payne Committee's recommendations are in part adopted in this Bill. I venture to doubt that—

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. and learned Member has doubts about whether they are in the Bill he cannot talk about them on Third Reading.

Mr. Percival: That will teach me to be accurate, Mr. Speaker. If I left out the word "doubt", I suspect that I would still be in order.
If we give the Bill its Third Reading, do let us stop and consider what we have done in relation to all the other recommendations that are before us in connection with associated matters. The one fear I have about the Bill, the one reason why I have doubt about giving it the Third Reading, is that I think that it has tended to deal piecemeal with isolated parts extracted from these various recommendations that are before us. I shall not allow that to deter me from giving a Third Reading to the Bill, because I hope and believe that what is in it may be of some use, but I hope that if we give it the Third Reading the Government may then pause, and ask, "Where has passing this Bill got us?"
That should be asked particularly in relation to all the other recommendations that are before us. Let us, then, perhaps have a statement from the Government on how all these recommendations that are before us can be correlated and fitted in with this Bill in such a way that we have time to think about them before the next piece of legislation relating to the administration of justice comes before us, so that we shall not overlook things through haste. In this instance, at least one part of what we did had to be reconsidered because various practical aspects had been overlooked.
With that reservation, and hoping that despite the doubts I have expressed what we are doing may be of service to the community in improving the administration of justice, I welcome the measure, and hope that it will get its Third Reading.

6.55 p.m.

The Solicitor-General: The discussions we have had on the Bill, with its very detailed and, at times, technical aspects, have often been fascinating for those of us who took part in them. I would like, if I may, to thank hon. Members on both sides who have contributed so much to these discussions. It is only right that I should pay my tribute to the co-operativeness and patience which are perhaps the outstanding characteristics which the hon. and learned Member for Southport (Mr. Percival) has brought to bear on the points to which we have given consideration, because I am aware that all too often, as it must have seemed to him, I have felt obliged, to resist recommendations that he made.
As the House is aware, the Bill is extremely varied in its provisions within the field of the administration of justice, and I do not propose at this stage to do more than make a passing reference to arguments that have been fully rehearsed. One of the main objects of the Bill is to encourage more cases to be brought in the county courts. I think that the increase in county court jurisdiction to £750 is a sensible and, indeed, an inevitable provision in view of the movements that we know of in the value of money.
We have argued at some length in Committee how far the various costs sanctions should go to give effect to the recommendations of the Payne and Winn Committee with regard to the jurisdiction of the county courts, and I hope that at the end of the day it will be agreed that the result will be to give a substantial measure of relief to the High Court without imposing undue burdens on the county court judges.
The opportunity has been taken at the same time of doing away with the provision whereby a solicitor could not employ another solicitor as his agent. The increase in the equity jurisdiction is the first for 103 years. This provision, and the other detailed provisions in the county courts will, I hope, be welcomed generally as a useful step forward.
It is, perhaps, not before time that the proposals to introduce a leapfrog procedure have been implemented. There will now be a convenient and less expensive way of taking a case to the House of Lords in the type of circumstances where appeal to the Court of Appeal would in any event have been wasted.
The provisions in the Bill which will enable mental patients to have wills made on their behalf by the Court of Protection have not given rise to detailed discussion during the Bill's passage, but that may have been because it is difficult not to realise that this is a fair and reasonable addition to the powers of the court in the exercise of its jurisdiction over the affairs of those who are mentally ill.
Part IV of the Bill contains a considerable number of miscellaneous provisions and I do not think that it would be appropriate for me to go into them in detail at this stage. I might refer, however, to the implementation of the very useful recommendations of the Winn Committee contained in Clauses 20, 21 and 22. The provisions in Clauses 20 and 22 will relieve the position of litigants who necessarily have to wait for a considerable time before receiving the benefit of damages which may be outstanding to them.
As I have said, this is necessarily a technical Bill. It is, however, a Measure which represents a substantial advance in its field, and it is for this reason that I ask the House now to approve it.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

WELFARE OF LIVESTOCK (BRAM- BELL COMMITTEE'S REPORT)

Mr. Speaker: Before I call the Minister to move the second Motion on the Order Paper—Agriculture (No. 1)—I think that it will help the House if I inform hon. Members that I have selected the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden).
I have not selected the other two Amendments to that first Motion. This will not inhibit hon. Members from making in the debate points which are expressed in the two Amendments which are not selected.
The House has two alternatives. Either it can debate narrowly each of the four Motions—Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 in the Order Paper—in which case we shall have a series of narrow and separate debates on welfare provisions for pigs, cattle, turkeys and domestic fowls, or it can have a general debate on the four Motions—

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Speaker: It seems to me that it would mean a much better and useful debate if we debated the Motions generally. I hope that that commands the support of both sides of the House.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Speaker: Then I will call the Minister to move the first Motion. I will then call the hon. Member for Gillingham to move his Amendment, after which a general debate can take place.

6.50 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. William Ross): I beg to move:
That this House takes note of the Paper entitled Code No. 2 of the Codes of Recommendations for the Welfare of Livestock, relating to pigs, a copy of which was laid before this House on 26th June, and approves the Codes contained in paragraphs 1 to 33 thereof.
This Motion, and the other Motions before the House, are to approve each of the codes entitled "Codes of Recommendations for the Welfare of Livestock". There is one code each for cattle, pigs, domestic fowls and turkeys, and copies of the codes were laid before the House on 26th June. Identical Motions have since been approved in another place on 14th October. I know that these codes

have created quite a great deal of interest among hon. Members concerned with the welfare of animals as well as among those concerned with agriculture.
I hope that the House will permit me to say how sorry I am that when I glance below the Gangway I do not see the figure of my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire, (Mr. Emrys Hughes), whose characteristic expressions enlivened the House, but who displayed a deep interest in agriculture, representing, as he did, an agricultural area. He was a very close and personal friend of mine.
The history of these codes which are now put forward for approval starts with the setting up in 1964 of the Committee on Intensive Livestock Husbandry Systems, under the chairmanship of Professor Rogers Brambell. This, in itself, was a new development, and much of the committee's work was of a pioneering nature. The Government's decisions on its report were announced in August, 1966 by the then Minister of agriculture. The House will remember that the Government accepted the general principle that new farm animal welfare legislation was needed; and that there should be a standing advisory committee. It is fair to point to one particular aspect of the committee's report in which it showed a very healthy sense of realism.
It recognised the inadequacy of scientific knowledge about animal behaviour and emphasised that the standards which it recommended were based on subjective judgments of what the animals' interests would be. It also made clear that it did not regard its standards as immutable.
On the contrary, in paragraph 221 of its report it explicitly looked to modifications which would avoid putting the industry in a straitjacket—the words of Brambell. The Government accordingly took the very understandable view that, at the first stage, they should not impose mandatory standards. Instead, they adopted a more flexible approach, which has since been enacted in the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1968.
Section 1 of the 1968 Act, to which the Government attach the greatest importance, makes it an offence to cause unnecessary pain or unnecessary distress to any farm animals, whether kept under


intensive systems or not. Section 3 of the Act enables Ministers to prepare codes of recommendations for the welfare of farm animals for the guidance of persons concerned with livestock. The codes require the approval of Parliament before they are issued, and that is the occasion of this debate.
The status of the codes is made clear in Section 3(4) of the Act. They are to be guidelines to livestock owners in the same sense that the Highway Code is a guide to the conduct of road users. They are not mandatory. The codes will not only serve as guidelines to individuals; they will also fully be taken into account when the State Veterinary Service and other advisory services of the Agricultural Departments give advice on farm animal welfare, as they are enabled to do under the Act.
The codes now before the House have been prepared by an independent standing committee appointed following the recommendation of the Brambell Committee. The committee's chairman is Professor Hewer, Professor of Zoology at the Imperial College. Its membership is both authoritative and eminent. It comprised, at the time of making its report, four scientists, four members with a special interest in animal welfare, four farmers, a veterinary surgeon and two other people with non-farming rural occupations.
The Hewer Committee has built on the foundations laid by the earlier Brambell Committee and has also spent two additional years on detailed and intensive study of the issues. During this time its members visited many commercial and research livestock units and obtained much first-hand evidence from those with a wide range of practical, professional and scientific experience of stockman-ship and farm animal rearing systems.

Mr. F. A. Burden: How many intensive farm units did the advisory committee visit as a committee.

Mr. Ross: I can no doubt obtain that information for the hon. Gentleman. In the meantime, I assure him that as well as visiting such establishments, the members of the committee spoke to a great many people about this matter. They therefore got the benefit of observational

experience over a very wide sphere indeed.
On this basis, they drew up draft codes and circulated them very widely among interested organisations, inviting comments. These comments were taken into account—in some cases they were supplemented by oral representations—before the committee prepared the final version of its draft codes for presentation to Ministers. The Government accepted these codes and the recommendations in the codes now before the House are exactly those which were presented to Ministers by Professor Hewer on behalf of his committee.
In presenting the codes, Professor Hewer said that some members had felt that they could not agree with certain of the recommendations, but that none of the dissenting members proposed that the codes should be completely rejected.
Since then, three of the ladies on the committee have changed their minds and have expressed their view that the committee should be given a further opportunity to consider certain aspects before the codes are approved. One member has resigned from the committee, not because of disagreement with the codes, but because he has identified a conflict of interest between his membership of the committee and his work as Scientific Director of the Universities' Federation for Animal Welfare.
The reasons which have led to these developments are appreciated, but it is perhaps significant, and more important at this stage, that the Act itself provides for the revision of the codes, should that be necessary, and that the committee is fully entitled to make recommendations to Ministers at any time for specific revisions.
Meanwhile, Ministers are convinced that it would not be in the interests of animal welfare to start again from scratch. This would delay progress for an indefinite period. By going ahead now with the codes as drafted in the form which commands the greatest unanimity which at present can be achieved, progress is being made and the way is left open for future improvements when more scientific information is available.

Mr. Donald Chapman: When?

Mr. Ross: This is possible at any time; that is, if the evidence is provided and the necessary scientific information is available to satisfy the majority of the Committee. This is a realistic point which must be taken into account.

Mr. Chapman: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for responding when I asked, "When?". As there is a conflict between what one might call the Brambell lobby, the supporters, and the scientific people, on crucial issues, would it not be possible for my right hon. Friend to say that he will bring the two sides together as soon as possible to try to obtain an agreement about whether there is need to amend the codes? That is the question I primarily had in mind when I asked, "When?".

Mr. Ross: My hon. Friend must appreciate the position of this committee. Those concerned can receive evidence at any time. If there is a conflict, then eventually Ministers must make a judgment. That cannot be avoided.

Mr. Bert Hazell: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that the setting up of the advisory committee arose out of one of the major recommendations of the Brambell Committee?

Mr. Ross: I have already said that. My hon. Friend is helping to trace the story in that it was set up in response to the Brambell Committee's recommendations.
The codes themselves set out detailed recommendations covering the main factors which affect the welfare of animals. These are housing, space allowances, food and water and general handling and management.
It is well known that the codes have been publicly criticised by the animal welfare organisations, and the Government respect the reasons which have prompted these criticisms. But we are convinced that the codes which have been prepared by the advisory committee represent the best advance that can be made now having regard to the present state of scientific knowledge.
The main criticisms relate to the recommendations about space allowances for poultry and calves and the feeding of calves. The allegation is that the

codes fall far short of the Brambell Report. We should bear in mind, however, that most of the main Brambell recommendations have already been implemented. For example, new legislation on animal welfare was passed last year—the 1968 Act—a standing advisory committee has been set up, the State Veterinary Service has been given powers of entry, and there are now, under Statute, wide-ranging powers to make regulations on all aspects of livestock welfare.
Moreover, it is important to bear in mind the statement of principle which is quoted as a preamble to each of the four codes. It is closely based on Chapter 4 of the Brambell Report, as will be evident to those familiar with its terms. The preamble says:
The basic requirements for the welfare of livestock are: the provision of readily accessible fresh water and nutritionally adequate food as required; the provision of adequate ventilation and a suitable environmental temperature; adequate freedom of movement and ability to stretch limbs; sufficient light for satisfactory inspection; and rapid diagnosis and treatment of injury and disease; emergency provision in the event of a breakdown of essential mechanical equipment; flooring which neither harms nor causes undue strain; and the avoidance of unnecessary mutilation. This code is based on these requirements, and takes account of available scientific knowledge and current farming practice.
There are five main differences between the codes and the Brambell recommendations. First, the Brambell recommendations would have required palatable roughage to be made available to calves at all ages from a week after birth. The Cattle Code requires calves to have roughage at the end of the second week unless they are being fed to appetite on a liquid diet that is complete in all known nutrients required by the calf.
On this issue the advisory committee took account of a great deal of evidence presented to it and consulted leading scientific authorities on animal physiology and nutrition.

Mr. Burden: Would the right hon. Gentleman—

Mr. Ross: No, I will not give way.

Mr. Burden: This is an important point.

Mr. Ross: It is not only an important point. I hope that it is an important


debate and that hon. Members will be able to put their points of view to the House. I have already given way a considerable number of times and would like to present the Government's case fairly fully.
Secondly, the Brambell Committee referred to the importance of iron as a constituent in the diet of calves. The Government have already announced their intention to introduce a regulation to govern the level of iron in animal calf foods and Ministers have asked the advisory committee to address itself particularly to this problem.
In the meantime, the recommendation in the code about diets containing all known nutrients the calf requires will apply to iron as to any other constituent of the diet.
Thirdly, the Brambell recommendation about the space allowances for calves was that
Individual pens for calves should be of a sufficient size to allow the calf freedom of movement including the ability to turn round, and those for calves of 200 to 300 lb. live-weight should measure at least 5 ft. by 3 ft. 6 ins.".
Paragraph 20 of the Cattle Code states:
All cattle, whether tethered or in pens, should have sufficient freedom of sideways movement to be able to groom themselves without difficulty and, if in a pen, sufficient room to lie down on their sides and extend their legs within its confines.
This rebuts the criticism that the codes would allow calves to be housed in pens with hardly any room to move. There has been an element of exaggeration about this.

Mr. Chapman: What about turning round?

Mr. Ross: Turning round may not be advisable from the point of view of the animal. I can assure my hon. Friend that anyone who knows anything about farming would accept that right away.
Fourthly, the Brambell Report recommended specific space allowances for poultry. The codes emphasise that the welfare of the birds can be at risk in intensive systems even at low stocking densities. The advisory committee felt that it would be wrong to recommend a maximum density as this would imply

that below it all would be well but to go above it would automatically mean suffering.
Instead, the codes indicate the densities above which the highest standards of stockmanship are vital if welfare is to be safeguarded. In reaching its conclusions the advisory committee considered scientific opinion and observational data not available to the Brambell Committee.
Lastly, the Brambell Report was against close tethering except for specific purposes for short periods. The advisory committee is satisfied—as are the overwhelming majority of farmers—that cattle can be kept tethered without being caused pain or distress, and that there is no need on welfare grounds to disturb this long-established husbandry practice.
Anyone who has visited a north country dairy farm or a Scottish farm, in winter, and has walked through the byre, can surely be in no doubt that the tethering of cattle is compatible with their obvious contentment. This has been done for generation after generation without complaint.
There are many welfare matters affecting both principle and detail where the advisory committee found themselves in full agreement with the earlier report by the Brambell Committee. There are also a number of issues in which the codes deal with aspects of livestock husbandry on which the Brambell Committee made no recommendations. These include, for cattle, the provision of dry bedding, methods of marking for identification, docking, and feeding space allowance in group housing.
For pigs, guidance is given on farrowing quarters for sows and the accommodation of boars. All the codes refer to fire precautions and those for cattle and pigs also deal with escape routines and emergency procedures. Most of the departures from the Brambell recommendations stem from further observation and later information.
If the codes are approved, they will be used as the framework within which the Veterinary Service will guide farmers and stockmen on the welfare of their stock. The service, which since the passing of the 1968 Act has had specific powers of entry for welfare purposes, will make full use of the codes. Incidentally,


in the course of the 10,000 or so inspections which have been made since the Act came into operation the opportunity has already been taken to consider animal welfare matters.
The service will proceed by means of advising on and encouraging the use of the codes, and prosecution will be very much a last resort used only when other means of persuading a livestock owner to protect the welfare of his animals have failed.
It is intended that the committee should make an early start on a code dealing with sheep. It is also understood that it is already considering whether codes will be needed for other species.
Another important task will be to advise Ministers on the need for regulations for those aspects of welfare for which they consider a mandatory control desirable. This may include the provision of lighting for routine inspection purposes in pig and poultry houses, control on the docking of pigs and, as already mentioned, provision to specify minimum iron content in manufactured calf food. The committee has already set up a research sub-committee which is reviewing the whole field of further activity.
The Brambell Committee said that its recommendations ought not to be prejudiced by imports of livestock products produced elsewhere under what we would consider unacceptable conditions. The farming industry naturally shares this concern. On an earlier occasion I assured the House that the Government would continue to watch this issue and would ensure that there was fair play. The Government have carefully considered whether the introduction of the codes will adversely affect the competitive position of British producers and have come to the conclusion that no change of this sort is implied. Consequently, no action is called for.
The N.F.U.s, however, asked me to make it clear that in their view certain aspects of the codes—and they have instanced the space allowances for veal and poultry—will have an economic impact and that they rely upon the Government to continue their earlier undertakings. I gladly reaffirm that the Government will continue to keep a close eye on how matters work out under the codes.
Some critics of the codes have alleged that the Government are retreating in the matter of animal welfare. This is just not true. The legislative record of this country on animal welfare is one of progress from the consolidating Acts of 1835 and 1849, through the Protection of Animals Act of 1911 and the Scottish Act of 1912 and various other statutes leading up to the most recent Act passed last year.
In spite of the increasing complexity of livestock farming today, farmers and other stockmen are for the most part fully competent and deeply concerned to ensure the welfare of their animals. It would be wrong to fetter their good sense with restrictions for which there is no objective justification.
It is fair to repeat that the Brambell Committee itself emphasised the need for more knowledge and experience before arriving at final conclusions. It was for this reason that the Farm Animal Welfare Advisory Committee was set up under Professor Hewer. This is a standing committee and will be continuing with its work. Revisions may be expected in the future, but for the time being the codes represent a considerable measure of progress.
Before the 1968 Act there was nothing there at all. Let us appreciate the progress that has been made. Both the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons and the British Veterinary Association, the professional organisations most concerned, have given us their support for these codes. They are, I emphasise, a starting point, and a unique starting point. So far as is known Britain is the only country which has produced codes of this kind. They are an earnest of our deep concern for animal welfare, and I ask the House to take note of them and approve them.

Mr. Speaker: I remind those who were not here at the beginning of the debate that I have selected the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) and some of his hon. and right hon. Friends. We are taking the four Motions together and debating the whole issue generally. It is obvious, that many Members wish to speak. Brief speeches will certainly help.

7.21 p.m.

Mr. F. A. Burden: I beg to move, to leave out from "June" to the end of the Question and add instead thereof:
'regrets that this Code fails to implement the recommendations of the Brambell Report and, whilst approving paragraphs 1 to 33 thereof as a temporary measure, requests Her Majesty's Government to introduce an amended Code in the forthcoming Session of Parliament'.
The concern of the public about intensive farming started to be felt early in the 1960s. It was no doubt in many ways made more urgent when Mrs. Ruth Harrison published her book on factory farming. Following that there was undoubtedly a growth in public concern and even among hon. Members. It was as a result of that, very largely I believe from pressure by certain hon. Members, that Mr. Christopher Soames, in 1964, set up the Brambell Committee.
As we are discussing the Brambell Committee's Report and animal welfare in general, it is right that we should remember exactly the terms of reference of the Brambell Committee. They were
To examine the conditions in which livestock are kept under systems of intensive husbandry and to advise whether standards ought to be set in the interests of their welfare, and if so what they should be.
No one in the House will quarrel with those terms of reference. They were clear, concise and positive. There could be no possible misunderstanding about them. There is no question of assessing the rights or wrongs of factory farming. The terms of reference were an acceptance of the fact that intensive farming was something that we had to accept and they dealt with the conditions of the animals kept under it.
Some people think that all forms of factory farming are morally wrong and cannot be justified. That is not my view. I accept that intensive production in agriculture is as necessary and as much a part of our way of life as it is in most other industries. But in most of the industries, no matter how intensive production may be, the conditions of the workers are jealously guarded the whole time. In almost every case workers are dealing with inanimate objects which they are fashioning for man's use.
In the farming industry the situation is entirely different. It is right and proper that every care should be taken to ensure

the welfare of workers in the farming industry. But they are not handling inanimate objects to fashion without the possibility of pain or stress. They have under their complete control from the day of their birth to the day when they go to the slaughtermen creatures which feel pain, stress and anxiety, perhaps in lesser degree, but in the same way as man. But they have no trade union. They have nobody to look after them. Therefore, because of the complete and absolute control which man has over the lives of those creatures, he has a responsibility to ensure that they are treated as humanely as possible from the day they are born to the day that they die.
Unlike man, the animal cannot tell us precisely how he feels. But—and the Minister stressed this—subjectively we know that they suffer. Of course they suffer. If we know that they suffer at all, why is it so subjective? It is an objective fact that animals suffer. So much play is made on the words "subjective" and "objective". It is usually said that a person is subjective if we do not agree with him and objective if we do agree with him. We must be extremely careful about the way in which we use this argument when dealing with the protection of animals. Because they are unable to protect themselves, it is that much more our responsibility to give them protection. Surely the Brambell Committee accepted that.
In some quarters it seems to be the desire, if not the intention, to imply that the Brambell Committee was an indiscriminately selected group of fuddy-duddies. Anyone who believes that should look up the record in "Who's Who" of all these people. They are men of tremendous experience, knowledge and integrity, renowned for their knowledge, not only in this country, but, in some cases, in the world. They were a very carefully selected group of distinguished men charged with a specific and precise duty. They included the Permanent Under-Secretary of the Ministry of Agriculture; and let it be known that not one of them had a vested interest.
When I asked the Minister how many organisations and farms the Farm Animal Welfare Advisory Committee visited, he could not answer. But I can tell him how many the Brambell Committee visited. It met and interviewed


representatives of 20 organisations. It visited 63 intensive farming units in this country and in the Netherlands. It had on the spot talks with the Government of Denmark. It took oral or written evidence, and in some cases both, from 49 individuals. We know from its report every one of the people whom it saw. We know every one of the organisations which it saw. They included the most prominent organisations in this field in this country.
Did the advisory committee see the same people or different people? Were the people it saw more qualified than those whom the Brambell Committee saw? Are we not entitled to know? The House has before it none of the evidence presented to the Farm Animal Welfare Advisory Committee. Why not, if we are asked to say which of these two Committees is right? If the Minister looks at the Brambell Committee's Report he will see the people, organisations and places which it visited. It is an interesting and impressive group of places.
The Minister has made much tonight about acceptance of the Brambell principles, but, of course, a lot was left out. Let me tell the Minister exactly what the principles were. In Chapter 4 of its Report, the Brambell Committee laid down the principles that any animal should have sufficient freedom of movement and be able without difficulty to turn around, groom itself, get up, lie down and stretch its limbs, and have adequate food and drink to prevent it suffering from hunger and thirst. I admit that, very largely, the rest of it was as the Minister stated, but that very important first part was left out.
In response to a question by one of his hon. Friends, the Minister also made play with the fact that the Brambell Committee asked for the setting up of a farm animal welfare advisory committee. The Brambell Committee did not, however, expect that advisory committee to take hold of its principles and tear them apart. It did not expect that that committee would throw out the specific recommendations which it had made, yet that was what happened.
Or was it? Not really, because many of the decisions were made by the Government before the advisory committee was set up. The Brambell Committee's

Report was produced in 1965. Mr. Peart, then Minister of Agriculture, made a statement in the House—

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not in order to refer to an hon. Member by his name.

Mr. Burden: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. The former Minister of Agriculture, now Leader of the House, made it clear that the Government had already made up their mind to throw out a great deal of the Brambell findings. He made the old point about subjective information about how animals feel, When shall we ever have legislation to protect animals if first we, human beings, must know precisely how much pain they have in all circumstances? We shall never have the legislation. That, of course, was a red herring and it cannot be supported on any other basis than as an effort to exclude obligations.
On 5th August, 1966, the former Minister of Agriculture went on to say:
In general, research must be prerequisite to any comprehensive development of statutory standards. The question of research is one which the Standing Advisory Committee will be asked to consider at an early date. We ourselves shall wish to discuss this subject with the interests concerned on the understanding that the Government could not undertake to finance it. Nevertheless, we believe that the Committee have justified their case for mandatory controls in some cases".
That was what the then Minister of Agriculture said. There are no mandatory controls, however, under the codes. The right hon. Gentleman said that he believed that they had justified themselves.
I do not wish to keep the House too long but there is one more important quotation of which the House should know. The right hon. Gentleman also stated to the House:
We must reject, as being impossible to enforce, the Committee's recommendation about the inclusion of roughage in calf diets, but the code of practice will include advice on feeding régimes.… we intend to advise that the animal should normally be able to groom its flanks "—
only "normally"; not always, but only sometimes.
The code of practice will also give advice on the provision of bedding and use of slatted floors".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th August, 1966; Vol. 733, c. 202–3.]
The Government and the Minister had therefore, made up their minds before the advisory committee was set up to


throw out much of the Brambell findings.
Then, a curious thing happened. In 1968, proposed draft codes were produced as a result, we thought, of the investigations of the advisory committee. They said that a calf should not be fed throughout the whole of its life on a liquid diet. The Brambell Committee said also that this was wrong and that calves should be given roughage.
What did the Government say? In September, 1968, in the draft Code for Cattle, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food said this about veal calves and calves generally:
Calves are ruminant animals; nutritionally adequate solid food should therefore be on offer to all calves by the end of their second week of life. If this food does not contain milled fibre, palatable unmilled roughage should also be available to them.
The Government went further, however, because with that document they issued another entitled
Notes for interested organisations".
I have been rather like a squirrel in these matters and I have kept these notes. This was what the Government said:
In drawing up the draft Code for Cattle the Advisory Committee have examined the welfare implications of the methods used to rear calves for 'white' veal, bearing in mind the announced intention of Ministers to introduce a regulation prescribing a minimum iron content in manufactured calf feeds. The Advisory Committee have endorsed the Brambell Committee's view that some of these methods are not acceptable on welfare grounds because they involve, for example, diets calculated to upset the calf's normal functions and the deliberate postponement of rumination.
And yet the codes now permit the animals to be fed throughout their life on a milk diet.
Obviously after those notes for guidance were produced, it was suddenly found that the Minister had already made a decision in 1966 that those who wanted to keep calves on a milk diet could do so. There was a flurry and the result was that provisions in the draft codes for the feeding of roughage were withdrawn. That, however, was the considered view of the advisory committee only a year ago, six months before the codes reached the light of day. There is no argument about this. Ministers can look among themselves, but those are the facts.
Why do Ministers intend that calves should be kept without roughage? It is purely and simply to deny them iron. If the calves are left to get as much iron as they can from roughage and also enabled to ruminate, which is their natural function, they get the iron through the roughage naturally. It is intended under the codes that they shall still be kept without the power to ruminate and the possibility is that their intake of iron will be below that which is acceptable so that the veal shall be white.
The R.S.P.C.A. has obtained some of the crates in which calves are put at the age of one week and in which they stay until they go to slaughter three months later weighing between 200 lb. and 300 lb. The crates are 5 ft. long and 2 ft. wide. If the Minister thinks that these animals can groom their sides when they get to slaughter size, he is living in fairyland. This is absolute nonsense. Therefore, it is necessary to increase the size.
I know that many hon. Members wish to speak but I feel that I should make this further point. I do not intend to deal with fowls, because I know that the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Ellis) wishes to speak. There has been much talk about Professor Hewer, who is now Chairman of the Advisory Committee. On 27th June, 1969, he wrote to me a letter in which he said this:
I have been surprised at the amount and character of the criticism levelled at the draft Codes and in today's paper, after the publication of the definitive Codes. I had, in fact, anticipated that most opposition would come from the industry and had arranged to meet agricultural group M.Ps in the next week or so. Now it looks as though I should have concentrated in the other direction to ensure that criticism is well-founded and not based on misconceived ideas.
He went on to say that the codes must be accepted in toto or rejected. Professor Hewer met members of the committee, most of whom were horrified by what he said. He stated that the debeaking of adult birds was allowable under the codes. On being asked to explain it, he said, "It is just as if you were cutting your own nails." That is not the scientific evidence which I have had. He said also that dewinging was permissible under the codes, and that this was done to stop birds kept in deep litter from getting frightened and attempting flight. When pressed to illustrate what it meant, he


said, "It is as if you cut off a man's arm at the elbow."
If these practices are allowable under the code, it is time that the code was changed, and I hope that the Minister will undertake to give serious consideration to this and to bringing in immediately amending legislation.

7.42 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Stodart: Before I turn to the content of the debate, may I, as representing a Scottish constituency, associate myself with what the right hon. Gentleman said about the death of Mr. Emrys Hughes. If he had been here tonight, we would have heard some of his devastatingly good-humoured comments and interventions. He was always enormously interested in agricultural matters and I should like to say how much we on this side of the House, and particularly those representing Scottish constituencies, will miss him.
I shall be brief, as many hon. Members wish to speak. The right hon. Gentleman has introduced tonight codes in accordance with the powers which he was given under the 1968 Act. The attitude of my right hon. Friend and myself then was that we were in no doubt that a set of codes would be of great value to the farming industry. This subject has rightly aroused very wide interest. We have all received many communications, most of them urging that the codes do not go far enough. My hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden), with great eloquence and sincerity, has voiced these anxieties, and it is to the aspect of whether the codes go far enough that I wish to address myself.
I have been farming for 35 years and, as farmers rarely agree with one another, it is almost inevitable that I may well be speaking only for myself among my farming colleagues. I do not keep livestock of the kind dealt with by the codes, but I have, as every farmer has, seen many of the houses to which the codes apply, and many of the conditions under which livestock are intensively kept. A tremendous lot has happened in farming during those 35 years. What used to be called "the way of life" has disappeared and the business of farming has come in.
Output has doubled with less than half the hands employed, and I have seen

nearly all the old draughty farm buildings disappear, as well as bits of ground which were pig sick and infested with fowl pest. Those farm buildings and the old conditions did not disappear because of any public outcry. Perhaps they should have, because the conditions under which farm animals were kept, which many people would say were natural conditions, were much less comfortable for the animals than the conditions which they enjoy today. That is, admittedly, only an expression of opinion, but it is based on what experience I have.
Those conditions went because the advisory services, plus certain economic pressures, prevailed, and I am in absolutely no doubt—and I do not think any hon. Gentlemen could shake me on this —that there were on those odd bits of land and in those buildings far more of what farmers call bad doers than under modern stockkeeping conditions.
The advent of intensive methods of stockkeeping has brought about higher productivity and the identification of bad layers; it has brought about better food conversion rates, increased fertility and reduced mortality. Having said all that, I freely admit that I do not find it attractive. I do not like it very much.
I recall the day each spring when I put the cattle out to grass. They loved it, and I adored it. I used to spend an hour or two, particularly on a sunny day, leaning on the gate and watching the cattle kick up their heels as they went out to grass for the first time. But many hon. Gentlement would say that public money—and quite a lot of it is involved—is not given to farmers so that they may be happy leaning over their gates. Efficiency is expected of us as well, and efficient the industry has tried to be.
Public anxiety in 1964 was such that Mr. Soames set up the Brambell Committee, and I can very well recall taking part in consultations with him on behalf of the Scottish Office about the personnel of that Committee. Brambell has reported and made recommendations, one of which was that an animal welfare committee should be appointed to prepare the codes.
It is probably fair to say that the R.S.P.C.A. and other organisations which may broadly be described—and I say it without the slightest offence—as the


animal welfare lobby would say that the codes are not enough, while the N.F.U. in one of its briefs has said that they go a little bit too far. I have often heard it said in this House that where someone says too much and someone else says too little, the answer may be just about right.
Possibly that is a poor way of coming to a decision. But erudite though the Brambell Committee was, the codes have the support of bodies which are just as well informed, namely, the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons and the British Veterinary Association. No one could dispute the integrity with which they would view this matter.
It is logical to ask why the Government have not gone in form pure unwatered Brambell. It is not for me to say, but I have read that if the Brambell Report were to be fully implemented it would cause an extra £50 million to be placed upon the industry through a drop in productivity every year. I do not know how those who advocate pure Brambell would go about ensuring that farm incomes were to be maintained. Perhaps by higher subsidies, possibly by putting up the price of food.
Unless they are prepared for one or other of these steps, the profits made would be whipped away. Away, too, would go the chances of stopping men leaving farming because wages are not high enough. It is out of the profits of farming and keeping livestock efficiently that good wages can be paid, wages good enough to compare with those in industry.
If pure Brambell was out of reach it is clear that a marriage had to be attempted between the practical and the ideal. Undoubtedly, this is only a first step. There will certainly be others. We are the first country to adopt codes for the welfare of livestock. This is yet another chapter in the long history of animal welfare for which the United Kingdom is famous the world over.
It is absolutely right that people should be anxious and should express anxiety and that the House should be as concerned about this matter as is clearly shown by the attendance here tonight. I as a farmer have spent much of my time trying to create interest in farming among those who are outside the industry. Therefore,

I should be extremely depressed if, when a matter of this kind were being discussed, hon. Members other than those with agricultural interests did not attend.
I said that I would be brief, and I have gone on longer than I intended. My own feeling on the matter is that this is a step in the right direction. I believe that it would have been a mistake to attempt to make the matter mandatory in the first place. It is a good compromise and is supported by knowledgeable and sound authorities. Speaking for myself, I shall support the introduction of the codes.

7.54 p.m.

Mr. John Ellis: In this debate we shall hear many references to experts. But after all the expert evidence has been considered, it will be up to hon. Members to make up their own minds about the decision they take.
I intend to speak mainly about poultry. When I considered all the evidence and the figures, I found it difficult to visualise what the experts actually were talking about. At least they talked about the numbers of birds per square foot, and so on.
In the code itself one finds the following:
Irrespective of the number of birds per cage, each bird should have a minimum trough space of 102 mm. (4 in.).
That is clear enough. Then it goes on:
In cages holding three or more lightweight birds the floor area should normally allow not less than I sq. m. per 39·1 kg.
I do not know whether there is any hon. Member in the House, or indeed any member of the public, who realises what this means in regard to the actual number of birds as related to a given area. I find it impossible to fix in my mind the idea of one square foot per 8 lb. liveweight which is the alternative given. Before the war birds were usually of the order of 6 lb., but in these days with hybridisation and better methods of rearing, producers have got down the weight to between 4 and 5 lb. Therefore, on a figure of 8 lb. one tends to think in terms of two birds rather than one.
The code continues:
For heavier birds the allowance should not normally be less than 1 sq. metre per 44 kilograms (one sq. ft. per 9 lb.) liveweight.


When I sought guidance in my dilemma in trying to find out what sorts of standards were envisaged, I received the following help from the Ministry:
A direct mathematical comparison between the maxima recommended by the Brambell Committee and the figures given in the codes of practice is not possible, because the former are expressed as numbers of birds for a given area and the latter are expressed as body weight against area.
That is a flat statement, but the Ministry goes on to say:
It is true that the figures in the codes will normally represent a greater density than the Brambell maxima.
They give away part of the case, but then they hastily retract:
This is not, however, a fair comparison, since the object of the two sets of figures is not the same.
By this time I almost felt like giving up.
I then went and spoke to some excellent people who are gathered together in the Food and Farms Society, which is not a wealthy lobby. We discussed the construction of a cage so that one could actually see what was in mind.
I understand that it is within the rules of order to demonstrate an argument with the aid of an exhibit, and I hope that the cage I hold in my hand will help hon. Members to see how I present my case. I understand that it is permissible to do this. Indeed, I have checked that an hon. Member in order to demonstrate what he is talking about may produce an item such as this. This object has been of the greatest use to me in envisaging what is involved. This cage is not intended as a gimmick but to show the sort of conditions in which birds will live.
This is a standard cage which is greatly used in the commercial world at present. The measurements of the cage are 19 inches by 14 inches and it contains three birds. What does Brambell say about such an object? The Brambell recommendations for three birds provide for a cage which is three inches wider and one inch deeper.
What do the codes propose? Again we have difficulty because the recommended space works out to about one bird to something like half of one square foot. I am open to correction, but I believe that it is right to say that if the cage which I have shown to hon. Members

were increased in size to about two square feet—in other words, if it were increased in size by about 20 square inches—according to the code it would be possible to put in another bird.
The industry has gone into the matter scientifically, wanting to get as many birds as possible in a given space. I believe that evidence is now being considered which indicates that, in order to keep birds in battery cages and broiler houses to the required density, they will have to be given antibiotics in their food. It may follow from that that, since the birds eat the food and then human beings eat the birds, in time human beings will be adversely affected by the chemicals fed to the birds. It may be that, when human beings come to take antibiotics for illness, to some extent they will be immune to them, and it will become necessary to cut down the amounts given to livestock, in which case it will no longer be possible to rear birds so intensively.
I gave careful consideration to the reasoned Amendment and concluded that at least it was a start. After all, this is the first time on which legislation has been proposed. How can we tell what cruelty is until we begin to define it?
I have given one example of an existing state of affairs which cannot be intensified further because of the possible health risks to human beings. Notwithstanding that, we are proposing to bring in a code which allows a greater density than exists today. In my opinion, that is going backwards, not forwards.
Where can we go for evidence? I am sure that every hon. Member has received a copy of a memorandum from the Federation of British Poultry Industries Limited, which takes this very point into account. The federation says:
Performance levels achieved by British poultry keepers are probably higher than anywhere else in the world, with egg production averaging 250 per bird per year.… The 'so-called' animal welfare organisations have placed much stress on density of livestock, whereas controlled ventilation, lighting and heating are equally important. Easy access to food and water is also an essential prerequisite to the welfare of poultry.
These are times when we want to encourage good stockmen who very often look after thousands of birds. They can only do the job with the most sophisticated modern methods in order to switch


on equipment and make sure that ventilators are operating properly, and so on. However, it is very difficult to present a fair picture without introducing an element of the horrific. One has only to refer to the Press for details.
In the last few years, these are just some of the accidents which have been reported. There were 2,600 hens killed in a battery unit at Foveran in January, 1968. There were 13,000 chicks burned to death in a broiler house at Starston, near Harleston, in February, 1968. There were 13,000 chicks killed by a fire in a broiler house near Abergavenny in April, 1968. In a broiler unit at Sway, 21,000 chicks died by fire. In April, 1969, 18,000 chickens were killed in a blaze at Buxten Chicken Farm, at Hilmarton. Those are golly a few of the many reported cases. The difficulty is that stockmen are not on duty 24 hours a day. In my opinion, a provision should be written into the codes of practice to the effect that, where large numbers of birds are involved, someone should be with them all the time to keep a close check on their welfare.
Originally, I intended to congratulate my right hon. Friend on having at least made a start and taken action which has been needed for a long time. However, I have come to the conclusion that whether we pass the necessary legislation is an academic matter, since the intensiveness of the system already in use cannot be made more intensive. The only result of attempting to do so will be to kill off the creatures which it is intended to rear. In the proposed regulations, we shall be doing something less and something which even in the hand-outs which we have received is accepted to be less.
As to the evidence of the two committees, I prefer the findings of the Brambell Committee to those of the Farm Animal Welfare Advisory Committee. The latter body includes a member of the Agricultural Research Centre and the Poultry Research Centre, both of which are Government-sponsored organisations. Then there was a member of the Medical Research Council, which again receives Government funds. There was a director of Double-A Hatcheries, supplying birds for intensive units and himself engaged in intensive pig-keeping. Then there was a landowner with an intensive poultry

unit, a member of the Cambridge School of Veterinary Medicine, which no doubt receives a Government grant, and a civil servant in the Ministry. Of the remainder, Major Scott, the Scientific Director of the Universities Federation for Animal Welfare, has resigned for one reason or another. Mrs. Ruth Harrison, an undoubted expert, also has gone. Mrs. Walshe, representing the R.S.P.C.A., has also gone, as has Miss Maynard of the Union of Agricultural Workers.
These are people of note. I have talked to some of them, as I have to farm workers. I have heard the stories which go round, one of which concerned an electrician who went to do a job at an intensive broiler house. There he saw a pack of bodies stretching away into the distance. He had been asked to mend a switch on the far side of the broiler house. He asked, "How do I get over there? I will have to walk on the birds". They told him, "All right. Walk on the birds".
I am not an expert, by any means. I did not know very much about intensive poultry rearing before I began my inquiries. I am always suspicious of people who wear plus-fours, go for long walks and eat carrots. However, I have been impressed by what I have learned about such matters as wiring and cabling in intensive poultry houses. I am told that any cables have to be armour-plated. The ammonia fumes coming up from the ground attack ordinary insulation, and all electrical wiring has to be armour-plated.
The Farmer and Stockbreeder of 24th September published an article by a Mr. Solomon Shaver in support of the Brambell Committee's recommendations.
There's not the slightest doubt that we are going to industrialise our agriculture: this is coming as sure as Christmas. But all of us on the farming side of the fence have to recognise that an increasingly sophisticated public is taking a more intelligent interest in animal welfare, and it's no longer any good saying, sweepingly, that all the consumer wants is cheap food and that he doesn't care where it comes from. Somehow we must devise a fair and just compromise between the interests concerned, until the results of scientific research can provide an acceptable and firmer base for our standards of livestock management.
I could add more to that statement, but I will rest my case on it. I hope that the Minister will agree to have another look at these codes. I think that


Brambell was a fair compromise. It does not go as far as I would wish, having looked at it, but it was a fair compromise. I ask the Minister to take the codes back or to give a firm promise, if we allow him to have his way tonight, that he will look at the evidence and come back to us with a firm pledge that he will go at least to Brambell's standards.
An over-statment of the case was made by someone in a group of people discussing why certain battery-produced eggs were so small—there are good and bad producers in this sphere—when he said, "That egg is so small because it is from a battery chicken. They are packed in so tight they cannot get their bottoms off the flood to lay a bigger egg." I do not go all the way with that statement, but I know what that man was talking about.
The Minister said that we should be proud that this country is legislating before all others. I think that he is right. But we ought to do a bit better. Let us at least make the regulations relevant and something that the rest of the world can follow.

8.12 p.m.

Mr. David Ensor: First, I must declare an interest in the poultry industry. When dealing with animals there is always a certain amount of heat engendered in an argument whether we are being cruel, reasonable, economic, experts, non-experts, those who farm, those who have not farmed, and so on.
The Brambell Report agreed originally that the intensive rearing systems are an economic necessity and that a tremendous increase in the production of poultry at prices that everyone can afford could not be achieved without them.
Like many right hon. and hon. Members on both sides, I have had the opportunity of being a practical farmer. I have had to look after poultry and animals. It is an accepted fact that no animal or bird will ever do—I use that word in the agricultural sense—unless it is reasonably happy and contented. I have seen it in this country and in other countries, and I am satisfied that the present system of intensive—I do not like the word "factory"—farming is

reasonable in the circumstances. I am not awfully fond of the words "experts" and "non-experts", because it is like talking about statistics, which can be made to mean anything, but coming down to the basic facts of agriculture, if a man is farming in a professional capacity, heaven knows it is in his interests to look after his animals or birds. It is in his interests to see that they are well looked after, that they are warm, comfortable and well fed.
Last week, in another place, the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge said—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot quote verbatim from a speech in another place.

Mr. Ensor: I beg your pardon, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I accept your Ruling.
From my own experience, the facts are perfectly simple if we are not to have intensive rearing of poultry. In the old days it was accepted that free ranging of poultry required approximately one acre of ground for 150 birds, the land to be rested every two years. We have a national flock of 70 million birds. I suggest that it would be a little difficult to find land to sustain such a flock and to sustain the flow of poultry-meat and eggs now being produced at prices that people can afford.
Over the last 12 years the poultry industry has increased its turnover to approximately £300 million a year. In those 12 years the price of chicken has come down from approximately 5s. 6d. a lb. to an average of 2s. 9d. to 2s. 10d. and turkey from 7s. to an average of 3s. 6d. per lb.
Twelve years ago chicken meat was a luxury. This is an inescapable fact. Today it is no longer a luxury. It is a food, a meat, which is eaten by an enormous number of the population of this country. If right hon. and hon. Members on both sides were to go round and see, as I have, millions of birds reared and producing in these circumstances, happy, contented, well-fed and well looked after, then there is a different situation from 12 years ago when a flock of birds would be out in the winter and would produce, with luck, 140 eggs a year compared with the figure now of approximately


270. In those days birds spent half their life during the winter up to their bellies in mud, slush and snow. They lived in very unpleasant and uncomfortable circumstances and they were eaten by foxes, cats and goodness knows what.

Sir Spencer Summers: Is the hon. Gentleman arguing that things have so improved that we do not need any code at all?

Mr. Ensor: I have never said that. I am saying that at the moment these birds are very much better off than were those of 12 years ago. These free-ranging chickens roosted in coops which were often broken into by foxes, weasels, stoats, and so on. The birds often had their legs bitten off. With the new methods of rearing, one sees these birds warm, comfortable, and happy. I doubt whether there are many children in this country who live in such comfortable circumstances as some of these birds do, but if one complains about cruelty to children one does not get very much response. I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Ellis) with his cage was slightly theatrical and not entirely accurate. These birds, with a life span of about 18 months, live in extremely hygienic and comfortable circumstances.
I do not believe that Brambell is wrong. On the other hand, perhaps it could have been—

Mr. Robert Sheldon: My hon. Friend referred to the theatrical nature of the cage produced by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Ellis). Will my hon. Friend accept that in practice these cages are surrounded by others on top, and by still others below, and that cages stretch for hundreds of yards on either side of them?

Mr. Ensor: I accept that they are not made of wire netting. [Interruption.] Perhaps I might be allowed to continue.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: I do not know why.

Mr. Ensor: That is a matter of opinion.
I do not believe that these birds are being ill-treated. It is not in the interests of the owners that they should be. These birds live in conditions of the utmost

cleanliness and comfort. [Interruption.] I am not going to be put off by a lot of nonsense going on behind me.

Mr. Heffer: The nonsense is going on in front of my hon. Friend.

Mr. Ensor: I am satisfied with what has been happening. No country in the world has a better reputation for looking after its animals than this country has. I am a member of the R.S.P.C.A., and I do not think that anybody in the House will disagree with me when I say that I am well known for my attempts to ensure that there is no ill treatment of animals. No country in the world has ever produced a code of conduct for its animals and its chickens. I have seen all the countries in Europe, and no country that I know of has produced a code such as this. If hon. Members do not agree with it, let us try it for five or ten years to see whether it will work. I believe that this is the right thing to do.

8.25 p.m.

Mr. W. F. Deedes: I found the presentation by the hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. Ensor) of poultry as a sort of new privileged class very fascinating but slightly overdone, and my remarks will not follow very closely the arguments that he has advanced to the House.
If I were to act—and I think that this goes for everybody in the House—in the light of most of the letters that I have received on this subject, I should denounce these codes as morally indefensible and vote for their reduction as a betrayal of Brambell. That is the sense of much of the correspondence that I have received.
Having looked at some of these establishments, and having tried to make independent inquiries, I have come to a rather different view. I have a lot of sympathy with the critics of these codes, for reasons which I shall give later. It is wrong to deride them. It may seem regrettable that we should have this campaign which involves charges of cruelty against a section of the farming community, which is grossly unfair to the great majority of farmers. That is a mistake, and is calculated to stir up a great deal of bad blood.
Against that, beyond any doubt these intensive methods of stock raising raise


very big issues in anything but foolish minds. As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) said, when he weighed it all up very carefully, "I do not like the method". We have no right to expect people to be silent on this. I do not resent any of the letters that I have received. There is a case to be argued, and it cannot be pushed out of sight.
A main charge is that Brambell's recommendations have been emasculated by the Government—a view expressed publicly by some authors of that report. I cannot accept that these codes betray Brambell. I do not think the doctrine that a Government are duty bound to enact even the main recommendations of a committee on a technical subject can hold water.
To charge the Government with bad faith, as my hon. Friend did—reluctant though I am to side with the Government on any matter—seems to me overdoing it. The same principle arose over the Wootton Report on cannabis, with which I was closely connected. I defended what the Government did then, and in a sense I do so again now. The Government's job is to reconcile ideals with the practical, and above all to avoid standards or regulations which cannot be enforced. Nothing could be worse than codes of practice, mandatory or otherwise, which could not be enforced.
At least one strong sanction against the downright cruelty which so many fear is not these codes, in any form, but the natural and inescapable truth that a person cannot hope to make a profit from animals which are badly treated, ill kept and unhappy. I share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burton) that animals have strong feelings and very often these will be expressed through their state of health. In fact, good husbandry equals profit and bad husbandry equals loss.
I put this doctrine to the test a few days ago when I visited an intensive calf unit, perhaps the most difficult element in all this. In round figures a week-old calf costs £12 and another £26 to rear, and if it is slaughtered at 13 or 14 weeks it brings in £50, thereby providing a profit of about £12. But this depends on two factors. The first is that the product is grade A—which will come only from a healthy animal. The second is that for

about ten weeks it will give a conversion ratio of one in one, or one lb. of food, with water added, to one lb. of weight. That depends on getting the right conditions of light, air and humidity and warmth, and for at least the first few weeks of life, quiet. These things must be provided if a profit is to be made. That is a forcible argument. In other words, within the system that we are discussing in most cases the standards must be high in order to pay.
I am sure that farmers in this business would do well to show their critics some of the establishments in question. One of the weaknesses of some of the critics that I have cross-examined is that they have felt it repulsive to go anywhere near such farms. Therefore, they do not know what goes on. Even then not all misgivings would be allayed. I am increasingly persuaded that what many object to are not the defects in the system—which the codes go some way towards remedying—but the system itself. Many people are instinctively prejudiced against intensive methods, however they are conducted. They object to animals being made units of production. The very term "factory farming" has become pejorative. I share much of this sense of unease not at the way that it is done but that it is done at all. I accept that there is an enormous question mark over this branch of technology.
But the time when this question should have been raised was 20 years ago, and it should have been raised more sharply. Why did it begin? I hope that this debate and the controversy round the subject—which will intensify—will serve to establish one truth far too little regarded today. It is the inexorable economic pressures which are bearing down upon the farming industry, internally and externally. I was profoundly impressed by the speech made by an old friend of many Members—the noble Lord, Lord Nugent—speaking in the other place. He said that he had been a farmer for 40 years, and he explained his part in this system and how it came about. He traced fairly the inexorable pressures which led him and his family business into intensive methods of husbandry, and I sensed in his words a feeling of regret. He spoke on behalf of thousands more.
The fact is that intensification of methods like this has been implicit in


almost every agricultural White Paper that we have published since the war. We have willed it. The whole price machinery is geared to inexorable pressure upon farmers to develop the most efficient, low-cost methods. We withhold a proportion of the annual profits accruing from higher productivity in order to make their methods more intensive. We urge this upon farmers every time we produce a White Paper. It is the technological phase of what has long been called a cheap food policy.
Well may the R.S.P.C.A. and my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham voice misgivings. But they should be directed on to the system that we have required farmers to adopt and not the methods which some are now adopting. When hon. Members here talk of farmers with their backs to the economic wall they are greeted with incredulity. Everybody seems to know wealthy farmers, but nobody knows the size of their overdrafts. It all adds up to economic pressures far more severe than is generally realised.
That is what Brambell is about. We see more of this in the wheat belts—and they are now belts—which are not relevant to this debate. Plenty of thinking farmers will privately share the misgivings of the R.S.P.C.A. Nobody knows better what is going on. To an extent the Government themselves are caught up in the backlash. They could not implement Brambell if they wanted to; it would doom a sizeable section of the industry to penury. They would fall behind foreign competitors. We would simply import the stuff. Many farmers who have turned to this method would be ruined. To that extent the right hon. Gentleman is a victim of the system that he and his predecessors—on our side as well as his—have spelt out year after year since the war.
So I say that we had better pass these codes and review them in the light of experience. They are the best advance which can now be made. But we ought not to ignore the warning light that this controversy throws on the way that we are going and the way that we are compelling farmers to go.

8.35 p.m.

Mr. John Rankin: I am sure that we all have in mind tonight that we are speaking for dumb animals—

those that cannot speak for themselves. The Amendment standing in my name an dthe names of other hon. Members
declines to approve a Code of Practice which fails to provide for freedom of movement as recommended in paragraph 37 of the Brambell Report, Command Paper No. 2836.
I should like to remind hon. Members of what Professor Brambell said in his report:
An animal should at least have sufficient freedom of movement to be able without difficulty to turn round, groom itself, get up, lie down and stretch its limbs.
I should like to make one small extension to that sentence. I want the animal to be able not only to stretch its limbs but to be able to do so fully. Every one of us who has watched dogs or cats, or even the canary in the cage, will know that stretching their limbs, or wings, fully is an essential feature of the animals' need.
In his letter of 23rd June, 1969, Professor Brambell was disappointed that the
codes for domestic fowls and turkeys fall far short of our recommendations regarding stocking densities.
He went on to say:
We made it clear in our report that we did not regard battery cages for domestic fowl as tolerable unless the minimum standards that we laid down were met. These densities defined in the codes are a compromise approximating to current practice, a compromise on a compromise for which no case other than commercial expediency exists.
It is suggested that because criticism is directed against only eight paragraphs out of the 200 with which we are concerned, we ought to be grateful for such mercy and accept the codes as they stand. But these eight paragraphs, as has been made clear time and again, are vital. They deal with bedding, lighting, stocking rates, slats and the quality of the animals' food. For example, the stocking rate proposed for pigs means that when all are lying down in their house they cover the floor completely and they have only enough room to do that. In such conditions it is not surprising to know that the floor tends to be covered with excreta, which perhaps explains a common but completely wrong view that the pig is a dirty animal. The truth is that pigs are only as dirty as man makes them. They have no escape from lying in unclean quarters and so their bodies become covered with dirt. If floor feeding is


practised, their food will also be mixed with unwholesome material. That is a consequence which cannot be escaped.

Mr. John M. Temple: I feel that the hon. Member has not seen a pig house of this description recently. Pigs will never eat off a floor which has been fouled. They will not eat the food. Pigs lie very close together and, taking the conditions which the hon. Member mentions—and they are not adequate—they always lie very closely huddled together. When did the hon. Member last see the conditions which he describes?

Mr. Rankin: I will not be drawn into across-the-floor argument on the matter which I have quoted. It is a quotation from a report which basically has not been challenged and it also deals with the type of pig house which I have seen personally on occasions.

Mr. Temple: When?

Mr. Rankin: I agree that intensive methods are coming into use for keeping breeding sows as well as for fattening pigs. A recently introduced practice is that of keeping pregnant sows in cubicles in which they cannot turn round. The cubicle is either open at the rear and the sow tethered or it is closed with the sow's head free. We are told that this practice prevents bullying as adult sows are more vicious in establishing a social order than are young fattening animals. It also simplifies management and allows control of the individual food intake. But, says Brambell,
despite these advantages we are unable to approve such close confinement continuously throughout pregnancy".
The Government's proposals fall far short of the minimum standards recommended by the Brambell Committee which presented its Report to Parliament as far back as December, 1965. The remit given to the committee by the Government of the day was
to examine the conditions in which livestock are kept under systems of intensive husbandry and to advise whether standards ought to be set in the interests of their welfare and, if so what these standards should be.
The committee's report reveals that closely confined calves spend the whole of their brief lives on slatted floors, in dim light in pens only slightly larger than themselves. They cannot lie down nor

can they stretch their limbs fully, as young animals want to do, and they cannot groom themselves. From birth to early death they are the prisoners of human greed. Their natural way of behaving is completely distorted.
What I have said about pigs, and merely mentioned in respect of calves, can be repeated in regard to turkeys and domestic fowl, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Ellis) so well showed earlier. In defence, or at least in partial defence, of this practice, we are told that man shall not live by bread alone, and that is true. He also depends on the animal and at the same time he preaches kindness towards it. Now is his chance to practise what he preaches.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie: We are debating a subject of very vital importance to all those engaged in the livestock industry as well as to those who buy our products. We are all quite clear in our minds tonight that we are not dealing with the economics of livestock husbandry, although that has a very strong bearing on our discussion.
Like other hon. Members, I have received a great many letters on this subject, and if I had not been so intimately connected with livestock husbandry I would have been very alarmed indeed on reading some of the letters. I agree that all those who have written to me have the very highest motives, but I am afraid that many of them are not familiar with the conditions in which most of our livestock are reared and the attention that is given to them.
Most of those who rear livestock are animal lovers in the truest sense. They know the animals' habits intimately. They are also aware that without good stock-manship animals will not thrive, and since animals are bred to grow and develop into profitable animals it is imperative in the interests of the rearer that they should be reared in conditions which will help them to develop.
The trained stockman knows at a glance whether an animal is thriving, or whether it is suffering from stress or discomfort from lack of food or water, on the one hand, or the elements and lack of space on the other. This is quite clear to him.

Mr. Burden: I am obliged to the hon. Gentlemen for giving way. Does he say that the experienced stockman knows more about whether or not these animals are suffering stress than those distinguished people of experience and knowledge who have come to the decisions set out in the Brambell Report?

Mr. Mackenzie: I think that they do know a lot more than some of the members of the Brambell Committee. They have the practical experience. I have been rearing animals now for 50 years, and have taken very close note, and this is my candid opinion—

Mr. Burden: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for again giving way. Will he, then, say that a calf weighing 300 lb. and kept in a cubicle measuring 5 ft. by 2 ft. is happy, and able to groom itself and carry out its proper functions?

Mr. Mackenzie: No, but I should like to come to that very point later.
In my opinion, we are dealing with a minority. I listened with great interest to what was said by the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Ellis) and I am sure that none of us was happy about the conditions he described. Calves kept in conditions such as described by the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) will not be contented, and it is difficult to see how anybody who is really a lover of animals would rear them in such conditions. Nevertheless, as I say, I think that we are dealing with a minority.
There is a lot more to be done, and it is necessary to appoint an advisory committee on which the best of the experts will serve. Not long ago no notice whatever was taken of the conditions in which animals and birds were reared. The codes we are discussing therefore represent a real step forward and I urge hon. Members to support them. We must continue, however, to investigate the position and discover the minority who treat animals cruelly.

8.51 p.m.

Mr. Bert Hazell: I am glad of this opportunity to comment on the codes and I will be brief because other hon. Members desire to put their points of view before the House.
Almost without exception, all hon. Members will have received masses of

correspondence from well-meaning people about the codes and on the subject generally. The vast majority of this correspondence has, I am sure, indicated that the codes do not go far enough. To an extent I agree with some of the observations that have been put to me in some of my mail, but I feel that a great deal of this correspondence has been based on sentiment without the writers having what the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie) described as a real knowledge of what is going on. 
It is easy to take a photograph with a particular angle in mind. It is easy to point to conditions at exceptional places and talk about what goes on generally. We should not lose sight of the fact that, by and large, our farmers and stock-keepers are interested in their jobs. Generally speaking, they are as much craftsmen as their counterparts working in industry; perhaps more so because the man or woman looking after poultry and stock has a closer knowledge of the job in hand than most workers in industry.
There are, of course, individual producers who do not adhere to the rules and who think that by crowding an extra bird or two into a pen they will raise egg production. Some producers think that by going in for very intensive methods—many of us would say too intensively—they might increase their turnover. Most people recognise, however, that if one crowds too many birds into a pen, egg production per bird will ultimately fall. It is also generally recognised that if one becomes too intensive, one will not necessarily achieve a higher financial return.
Most farmers adopt a commonsense approach to this problem. While, as I have said, there are exceptions to this rule, most of them seek advice from the advisory services and others about the best ways to make their holdings more profitable and at the same time maintain their stock in reasonable conditions.
Much of the criticism that has been voiced today and much of that expressed in correspondence is about the fact that these codes do not have legal enforcement.
The codes have been tied up with the 1968 Agriculture Act, under which there is a provision for prosecutions if a veterinary surgeon feels a case is made


out, or if someone makes a report to him and he finds on investigation that some degree of cruelty has taken place. Like the Highway Code, the codes provide part of the evidence when a prosecution is undertaken under the terms of the main Act. I am sure that the House will pass the codes, but not because it likes every aspect of them.
There are some features of which I am critical. I do not like the idea of a continuation of the production of white veal under the methods tolerated by the codes. If it were not that some people were prepared to pay a very high price for a meal in a costly restaurant, there would not be the demand for white veal, which restaurants seem to have created. I would like to see this firmly tackled in future codes.
I do not like the idea of the docking of pigs' tails. This can be very cruel. It can be done when prescribed by the "vet". I do not like the fact that an ordinary farm worker can do this provided that it has been prescribed. In Standing Committee, I stressed that I thought this job should be done by qualified people, not by the farm worker or even the farmer who has not had professional training. I would like the Minister to take this up in further codes and introduce some amendment.
I have been to a lot of intensive poultry units in my constituency and further afield. I do not like to see birds wearing spectacles. It seems sheer bad husbandry if it is not possible to maintain productive poultry units without the use of spectacles, which can become entangled with other birds. Surely it would be better to improve stockmanship than adopt this gimmick, because it is nothing more. It is repugnant.
I have been to units in Norfolk where debeaking had been undertaken. At one place I was told the reason, and I fully understood it. At another place there had been no debeaking because the man in charge had made a greater study of the matter, and by careful control of lighting, and so on, was not faced with the same problem. This is all part of good stockmanship, showing the need for training of workers and farmers. Whether dealing with flocks of poultry or animals there is a necessity to obtain first-class knowledge. Then some of the things

which constitute cruelty would not be necessary.
I return to the point that the general level of husbandry in agriculture is high. There is no reason why it cannot be improved. Tonight, it has generally been appreciated that the debate is not about factory farming. That is good, because if factory farming was to be tackled it should have been tackled 20 years ago. Those who think that we should go back to a free-range poultry system should remember that, with 60 million birds, if we adopted such a system—and it is highly unlikely—a vast acreage would be required and the cost of eggs would rise quite substantially.
It is easy for us to say in this Chamber, "If we were a little more generous perhaps the cost would rise, but the consumer will pay". Many people who have tremendous sympathy and express their sentiments very forcefully would object strongly if they had to pay substantially more for their eggs or for their poultry. I can recall when a chicken on the table in my home was a luxury. Today, chicken meat is commonplace, and economics have made it cheaper than beef and other products.
We can never contemplate going back to old methods, even if they were desirable. And were they really desirable? I have seen hundreds and hundreds of wet and bedraggled hens on farms in winter. We could not rely on the quality of the eggs which we bought. True the yolks were deeper in colour, but often the eggs when collected from a farm dyke or from under a farm hedge had half grown chickens in them, or were bad, particularly in the spring of the year. Do not let us kid ourselves that in years gone by conditions on the farms were perfect and that poultry were raised in satisfactory conditions and that we have deteriorated as a nation by the introduction of intensive methods. If we kid ourselves in this way, we do not understand agriculture or what went on in the past.
We can all disagree with some aspects of the codes. I am sure that all hon. Members hope that in time the standing advisory committee which assists the Minister in bringing forward codes of this nature will recommend amended codes so that a little more humane treatment may be afforded to our animals and


birds. But these codes are a step in the right direction, and, therefore, the House should support them.

9.4 p.m.

Mr. R. H. Turton: The hon. Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Hazell) stressed that farmers and stockmen are kind to animals. That is true. But we are not arguing about that. We are discussing whether these codes of practice are satisfactory standards of humane treatment of animals.
The Secretary of State for Scotland made a very fair speech, with one lapse, which was when he said that Major Scott had resigned from the committee because of a conflict of loyalties. Major Scott said that
he found it impossible to serve on the advisory committee, which has ignored basic essentials for the welfare of animals. This was particularly true of the space allowance for hens in battery cages and the feeding of veal calves.
It is unfortunate that the Secretary of State did not mention that fact when he opened the debate, because it is on that fact that the whole debate turns. A great deal of the codes is very satisfactory but it is on those two points —the space allowance for battery hens and veal calves—that the country is rightly concerned.
The whole idea of a code is not to apply mandatory methods but to give guidance for those who keep these animals, especially under intensive conditions, about what the nation considers to be humane and not cruel.
The parallel to this is the Highway Code. Clearly, if we are to lay down guidance, it must be precise, clear and unambiguous. Otherwise, there is an appalling risk that codes which are obscure, not clear and ambiguous may lower the standards of behaviour and encourage people to resort to a degree of cruelty that is not at present practised. That is a risk which must be faced.
When the Lord President of the Council presented the Bill on Third Reading on 21st February, 1968, he said:
We set great store by the codes of practice provided for in Clause 3… The aim is to make the recommendations in them clear, precise and reasonable."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st February, 1968; Vol. 759, c. 586.]

That is how the recommendations are presented in the Highway Code, of which I would like to remind right hon. and hon. Members. Paragraph 35 of the Highway Code, which deals with space allowance and stopping distances, lays down clearly and precisely in terms of feet the overall stopping distance. In paragraph 49, dealing with animals, it states clearly and precisely what is meant:
Go slowly when driving past animals. Give them plenty of room. Do not frighten the animals by sounding your horn.
Let us turn, first, to the Brambell Report concerning battery hens, because this is where I think that the Government have made a mistake. The hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Ellis) has graphically illustrated what the Brambell Committee said about battery hens, but he forgot to mention that that committee said, first, that there should not be more than three birds in a cage. The committee said that when there were three birds in a cage, it must be of a minimum size of 20 in. by 17 in. by 18 in. in height and that the birds must be able to stretch a wing comfortably. Those Brambell recommendations were clear, precise and unambiguous.
The code for domestic fowls specifies that the space allowance should be 1 sq. ft. for eight lbs. In other words, in terms of the Brambell recommendation for the three-bird cage, it should be able to hold five lightweight birds or four heavy birds. We have seen what is the Brambell size—five birds! Does the Minister of Agriculture tell me that to have five lightweight birds in a cage of Brambell size is humane? I do not believe that more than a very small minority of the intensive units have five lightweight birds in the Brambell-size cage.
Secondly, the code states that the birds should be able to stand normally, and turn round and stretch their wings. How can five birds in a Brambell-sized cage do that? Thirdly, paragraph 24 of the code states:
The following allowances are given as a guide to those below which sound management may become the critical factor.
Is that the right phrasing? Would that phrasing appear in the Highway Code? The spokesman for the Government in the other place said that it was possible


to write this paragraph differently to make it clearer.
If that is so, the Amendment should be accepted, and the Government should take the code back and write it more clearly. That is all we are asking. Have this as a temporary measure, certainly, but do get it right, because we are worried about battery hens and veal calves. In introducing the code in the other place the Government spokesman said that the phraseology was not happy.
In a recent Gallup Poll farmers were asked whether all poultry should have room to spread their wings and 78 per cent. of the farmers said that they should. Therefore, 78 per cent. of the farmers and 91 per cent. of the public cannot be satisfied with a code that will allow five lightweight birds or four heavy birds in a Brambell-sized cage.
Paragraph 145 of the Brambell Report states that the diet of veal calves should be reinforced with iron, and recommendation 19 says that all calves should have roughage from one week after birth. Paragraph 148 says that there should be no close tethering, and paragraph 149 says that veal calves should have room to turn round and to groom themselves. Paragraph 150 recommends that for calves over 200 lb. the pens should measure 5 feet by 3 feet 6 inches and not 5 feet by 2 feet, as they do in many veal calf units. Paragraph 152 states that there should be straw or bedding on which the calves can lie down.
The recommendations of the Brambell Report were submitted to a farmers' co-operative organisation in the north of England that goes in for calf weaner units and battery hens. It has a turnover of £7 million and it is a considerable enterprise. Those five recommendations on veal calves were pronounced by a subcommittee of that organisation to be acceptable, with the exception that it preferred 3 feet of solid sides in the pens to 2 feet solid sides.
When an intensive calf co-operative has agreed with the recommendations, why have the Government not accepted them and brought in codes to deal with veal calves on those lines? In the Gallup Poll farmers were asked whether there should be any diet deficiency induced deliberately. Ninety-four per cent. of the farmers said that there should not be any such deficiency, and 85 per

cent. of them said that calves should be able to turn round in their pens.
What does one find when one looks at the codes for veal calves? I admit that the question of iron is to be governed by regulation and not by the code, but one sees that there need be no roughage if there is an adequate milk substitute. It was the whole argument deployed by the Brambell Committee that there must be roughage for ruminants.
Further, there is nothing in the code to stop close tethering of calves. There is no space allowed as laid down by Brambell, nor is there any provision for turning round as recommended by Brambell. They must be able to groom themselves, with sufficient room to lie down on their sides or extend their legs within the confines.
The real question is whether this means their being able to stretch their legs to the full extent. Unless this is put clearly, the whole issue is left in doubt. There was a good deal of argument about this matter in the other place. Certainly, the code on veal calves is not clear and a great many people are worried about it.
The code does not even follow Brambell on the question of bedding, which is a good illustration of the imprecise way in which the advisory committee handles these codes. The code says that for calves up to 12 weeks straw may be necessary. Brambell says that one must have bedding for calves, and suggests straw or other material. The code leaves it in such a way that the type of bedding is not known.
The codes should be taken back and improved as they apply to battery hens and veal calves. Farmers should be told quite clearly that it is intolerable that battery hens should be unable to stretch their wings. I hope that the Minister will tell us his intentions in this matter.
The other matter which arises in this connection is whether the Minister intends to stop the production of white veal. The country and the House demand that it should be stopped. In the code the situation is left uncertain.
One of the difficulties is that the Minister has not adopted the Brambell recommendation that there should be an advisory committee which did not contain representatives of interests. The Minister appointed an advisory committee which contained a number of members who


were interested in factory farming, others who were interested in animal welfare societies, and a number of scientists who were interested in research, vivisection and all the rest. What happened in the advisory committee was that these conflicting interests disagreed, with the result that there was a minority report as well as a majority report.
I ask the Minister to think again on this matter. The authority of the Brambell Committee is that it had no one interested in factory farming or animal welfare. It was composed of distinguished members of the Ministry, the Agricultural Land Service, N.A.A.S., a professor of animal husbandry, and a professor of zoology. The Brambell Committee suggested an Advisory Committee having only 10 members and that they should not represent any interest, but merely be distinguished by their knowledge and general reputation.
We know that most farmers and stockmen hate cruelty to animals. They care far more for the welfare of their animals than any other section of the population. But we know that there is a danger of what I call concentration camp farming coming in, not stimulated by agricultural interests. We want that to be stopped, and we look to the Minister to stop it.
I shall not vote against the Minister's codes, but I ask him to think over what has been said and next Session to bring in a new code, advised by a new advisory committee—he will have to reorganise it; he will have many resignations—designed to deal with battery hens and white veal calves.

9.22 p.m.

Dr. Shirley Summerskill: The debate has illustrated clearly the conflict between the economic interests of farmers and the Government and the inevitable compassion for our fellow creatures which everybody feels. There is a constant battle to match one with the other, and we have ended with a rather lukewarm set of codes from the Government, who are trying to appease both sections and in the result have done neither very successfully.
We have heard a great deal about how animals are now looked upon increasingly as units and batches rather than as individual creatures with feelings. I do not

feel that the House should accept these rather lukewarm recommendations, not because it opposes them as such, but because, if it accepts them, it will be acquiescing in many measures which are now being carried out by the more ruthless minority of farmers in the community.
The introduction of the code claims that it provides basic guidelines to ensure the welfare of cattle. Is that the most that the Government can do—simply give us basic guidelines? It seems to me, as we have heard throughout the debate, that these codes will tolerate what is nothing less than cruelty to animals.
I say again that the majority of farmers are humane and compassionate, but these codes put them at an economic disadvantage when in competition with ruthless and unscrupulous farmers who are out for a quick and easy profit. These farmers, who are out for short-term, maximum exploitation, will laugh at these codes and carry on with what they are already doing.
When I was a student of zoology I learned that the basic difference—

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Cledwyn Hughes): My hon. Friend has made some serious statements in the course of her speech. Will she give the House evidence of the ruthless and cruel farmers who are exploiting in the manner she describes?

Dr. Summerskill: We have had examples of it throughout the debate. I have sat through every minute of it, and every hon. Member who has done the same will have been left with a picture of some ruthless and cruel acts committed to animals. I am taking the evidence of hon. Members—[Interruption.]

Mr. Burden: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mr. Speaker: Order. It will be better if the debate continues in the orderly way that it has done so far.

Mr. Burden: One piece of evidence of possible cruelty came when Professor Hewer, the Chairman of the Advisory Committee, stated that, under the codes, the cutting off of a chicken's wing "as at the elbow" would be allowable under the codes.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot have a tripartite debate. Perhaps the hon. Lady will continue, and then she may possibly give way to the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: I must correct the inaccuracy for which the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) is responsible. It is stated specifically in the codes that de-winging is not permitted.

Mr. Burden: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has had his innings. Dr. Summerskill.

Dr. Summerskill: When I was a student of zoology, I learned that the basic difference between a plant and an animal is that an animal can move whereas a plant cannot. To deprive an animal of the basic ability to move about and turn round and stretch out to the maximum that its legs will allow is a freedom which should not be denied it. If we wish to punish a criminal, we deny him his freedom. In concentration camps, the worst punishment possible was to put a man in such a small hole that he could not stand up or move about. The Brambell Committee was adamant that a bird should be able to stretch its wings and that an animal must have freedom to move round. Since that report, there has been no scientific evidence to refute that fact. I would ask the Minister whether he can provide any scientific evidence to refute that an animal must be able to move round.
We have heard too little of behavioural distress in animals. Many people seem to think that if an animal looks all right, appears to have a good coat and the rest of it, or if a hen lays enough eggs, mentally there is no stress or strain. However, the patients of mental hospitals are often plump and well-fed. Physically, they feel fine, but they are under mental stress and anxiety and are suffering from mental disease. There is not necessarily a very clear correlation between physical deprivation and mental deprivation, and the latter cannot be dismissed so easily.
My right hon. Friend has great faith in his advisory committee. However, we have learned that four farmers served

on it. There is nothing wrong with that, of course, except that it would have been better to have had a committee where vested interests were not represented. It would have been better if members of the committee could have been drawn from the Department of Education and Science, zoologists, people who have studied animal behaviour, academics, and others without a vested interest in the subject.
Major Scott resigned from that committee. So far, no one has quoted what he said when he resigned. These were his words:
The codes represent a compromise approximating to existing practice for which no case other than commercial expediency exists.
Members of the public are often told by some farmers that they have no right to interfere in this matter and know nothing about rearing animals. It is the duty of Parliament to look at this objectively, and not subjectively. We should interest ourselves in the feelings of animals. After all, they have no trade union, and they cannot speak for themselves, quite apart from the fact that the taxpayer is supporting agriculture.
There is a fundamental difference between the advisory committee and the Brambell Committee. The Brambell Committee was unanimous in its decision. The advisory committee's recommendations were not unanimous. These codes are maintaining the status quo. They are a small advance on present-day methods. A code should be something to aim at, something to improve towards, yet these codes represent the lowest and not the highest standards. By recognising them we are doing harm rather than good to agriculture in this country. There are standards in these codes which many of us would not accept or tolerate among our domestic pets or among animals in the zoo. Even animals used for research in laboratories are often kept in better conditions than these codes will permit.
Why do the Government have to stop at this point? They mean well, but the answer is obvious. They are yielding to economic pressures, to economic interests, as I said at the beginning. It would cost farmers a great deal of money to adapt themselves to new and more modern layouts to look after their animals.
The Minister boasts that these codes are the first in the world. What good is a boast like that if the codes are inadequate? We want good codes to boast about, not just any codes at all, especially if they are in some sense officially recognising that cruelty to animals is permitted, and laying that down as a standard.
If we accept these codes, they may eventually form the basis of an international set of codes under the United Nations. I had hoped that the House would present the world with a far higher standard of codes than we have to accept this evening. We should adopt a set of codes of which we and Britain can be proud, in order to maintain our great reputation for kindness to animals.

9.32 p.m.

Mr. John M. Temple: Like right hon. and hon. Members on both sides, I must express my deep concern for the welfare of our livestock. I am a practical farmer of 30 years' standing, and during that time I have had the good fortune to travel round the world and see the immense strides which have been taken in the intensification of livestock production.
I remember seeing, about 30 years ago, the beef lots of the Middle West, which were possibly the precursors of the intensification of livestock production. A few years ago I went to Eastern Europe, where I saw that intensive livestock production was moving forward very rapidly. When I flew over the Mississippi Valley, I was rather surprised to see some enormous houses. They looked like factories, and I asked the pilot what they were. He told me that they were giant poultry houses.
I know from experience that the intensification of livestock production in this country is moving forward. When I speak in the House, I like to have reasonably up-to-date information about the subject under discussion, so last Friday, to refresh my memory, because I am reasonably conversant with these conditions, I visited a large turkey breeding establishment, a large pig unit, and two large poultry units. I did not visit a veal calf unit because one was not available. I saw all the signs of intensification in the keeping of livestock.
We have to be extremely careful about this trends, because when one gets vast concentrations of animals doubts arise in one's mind about whether the animals can be looked after as well as they should be. Hon. Members may recollect that in May of this year it was exceptionally wet. I was told that in our own area 5,000 dead sheep were brought into one animal disposal establishment.
I make this point only to indicate that if livestock losses on that scale had been countenanced in an intensive livestock unit the owner would have been out of business. Much greater hardship is caused to animals on free range than is ever caused to them in these intensive livestock units, because there losses must be kept to a minimum. I believe that the losses in these units are about half the percentage of the losses that occur on free range.
I have looked at these codes from three angles—first, from the angle of the welfare of the livestock. I do that critically, because I am not a lover of intensive livestock production, which has been forced on the farming industry, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) so graphically pointed out. Having accepted that it has been forced on our farming industry, it is necessary to look carefully at the welfare of the animals.
I had the good fortune to visit a large turkey outfit—possibly the foremost breeding outfit for turkeys in this country. I met the owner and, significantly, I met the chief veterinary adviser as well. In Peru, only last year, I went to one of the large beef units, with 10,000 beef animals on one feed lot. They were entirely intensively fed. Looking at the backcloth of the Andes one would have thought that all those animals would have been on the ranges, but today everything is changing. The feed is being brought to the animals. There again, there was a veterinary surgeon in charge, as well as a nutritional expert.
One can say that in the best intensively organised livestock outfits in the world—and we must aim at having the best—there is a first-class state of welfare for the animals, and also a first-class state of nutrition, and combined with it a wonderful conversion rate of food into meat.
I want to say a word about the economic trends. Without doubt farming today, with 10 per cent. interest rates on borrowed capital necessitates a very high throughput. I have experienced this myself. To my loss, I am not an intensive keeper of livestock, but I know that to attain the maximum return today intensification must be practised.
The other aspect of the situation to which I wish to draw attention concerns the trends in husbandry. It is amazing to think of the amount of grass which can be produced in any field today during the course of a year. It is almost sacrilege to turn a cow on to a field today because she tramples on the grass that she should be eating. That indicates that on a day not too far distant cows will be fed by having grain, fodder and succulence brought to them.
I had a dream the other night of a scientist who invented a "munching machine" and of an automatic cudder producing milk at the other end. It sounds fantastic, but things are moving extremely fast in science and agriculture and in the turning of animal food into products which the housewife wants to eat. It is not so fantastic to think that these things will come to pass, when cows will not be seen in the fields.
It was against this background that I looked at the codes and asked myself, "Should these codes be mandatory or advisory?" I had the experience of living through the foot-and-mouth epidemic of 1967–68. For six months I never went into my own farm buildings. During that time the veterinary advisers of the Ministry had to work within a specified code of regulations laid down by Parliament. The veterinary advisers were in great difficulties because everything was laid down in detail in the regulations and no flexibility was allowed in those regulations.
I should like to remind the House of a picture of the Prime Minister which I always carry with me. I do not carry so many pictures of the Prime Minister so close to my heart! But I have this one mental picture of the Prime Minister standing on a mat which had been soused in an approved disinfectant before he flew by helicopter to the Channel Islands. Everybody with experience of the Ministry regulations relating to approved disinfectants knows that the Prime

Minister would have had to stand on that mat for 24 hours before the virus was killed. I give this as an indication of the great danger of laying down in a Statute regulations concerning agricultural subjects. In this instance, the Government are doing the right thing in laying down these flexible codes.
I wish to draw attention to two basic safeguards which have possibly been overlooked. One is that when an officer of the Ministry's veterinary service, for which I have the highest regard, goes on to a farm everybody knows that that man knows his business and will put some searching questions. Under the 1968 Act the Ministry inspectors can go on to any farm and see whether there is any cruelty. Added to that is the other safeguard: these codes will have to be observed.
I believe that those things taken together are a very large step forward. I welcome these codes; I hope they will later be amended and improved. I know that we are taking a real step in the right direction.

9.42 p.m.

Mr. J. T. Price: I confess at once that I am quite incapable of indulging in the kind of sophisticated juggling with words that the hon. Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple) has done, and, although we all like him personally, he must forgive me if I strongly disagree with some of his ideas.
I have listened with close attention to most of the speeches this evening, and I say at once that although one cannot dismiss the economic arguments in favour of these practices, we are not discussing tonight the economics of factory farming. We are discussing the morality of factory farming. The speeches that have been critical of these codes have come from those who feel that the limit has been reached at which we can willingly tolerate a further movement in a downward direction which puts into a second-class position the welfare of animals because man needs them so much as a result of the increasing population. I am well aware of the arguments presented by the economists.
My right hon. Friend, who has a difficult task to discharge, has stated quite fairly that these are the first codes


and are liberal in relation to what happens in other parts of the world. As a British subject, I have always been proud of the fact that we have a better record in this country than most of our neighbours on the Continent and elsewhere for animal welfare. But I am dismayed that because of these economic arguments we are accepting a situation in which, for the sake of economics, we are going to create an anthill civilisation, in which man does not escape from the moral consequences of what he is doing.
I realise that, at this time of night, the House will not welcome a long speech from me, but I recall to the memory of some of the more senior Members present what happened about 40 years ago when there was such a revulsion of liberal feeling in this country—I am not speaking in political terms; I mean liberal with a small "1"—that people refused to eat some of the delicacies which were produced on the Continent of Europe, in Strasbourg and elsewhere. I refer, in particular, to pâité de foie gras. Such things scandalised public opinion in this country 40 years ago, because of the inhuman conditions in which those unfortunate creatures were penned in hundreds of cellars in the city of Strasbourg and in Alsace-Lorraine—I have seen them for myself—in order to produce delicacies to titivate the palate of gourmets and others who like delicate meals.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Ellis) illustrated the way in which these creatures are confined in a dramatic way tonight, though quite in order, I believe, by showing the tiny space within which hens are now being confined by factory farmers. That sort of thing has been done in Strasbourg for the past 50 years, and some of us have always refused to eat the products of these processes, yet they are now becoming endemic in British agriculture, too.
I do not wish to be unkind to my right hon. Friends in the Government, who are under all sorts of pressure, and none greater than the economic pressures, but I ask them to think again on what they are doing here. They have to a large extent antagonised a great deal of liberal opinion in this country, including my own and that of many hon. Members, regardless of the side on which they sit.
We cannot afford to allow the mere economics of the situation to dictate a code of agriculture which, whatever may be said in its defence, pays scant regard to the animal which is ultimately destined for human consumption. Yet today animals are kept in conditions which give them no life at all, save to be penned, for example, as calves are, within a space of 5 feet by 2 feet, unable even to turn round or stretch their legs. We cannot justify it.
Earlier in the debate, one hon. Member made a passing reference to the need to produce more food because more people are coming into the world and there are more mouths to feed. I do not stand against efficiency. I have always stood for efficiency in all kinds of ways, but here we are dealing not with inanimate objects but with animal life of a high order, with cattle and other creatures which are destined for human consumption.
I protest, as moderately as I can, that we cannot allow these codes to be the last word. There is an idea that, if only we have some sort of nominal code, without statutory backing, everyone will obey it. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill) when she says that that will disadvantage the farmer who does not like this rotten system to a far greater extent than he is already because he will be in competition with people who do not care a damn how they rear their animals so long as they produce a lot of meat and good profits.
Perhaps I have spoken a little too strongly. I try not to be emotional about these things, but this is an emotive question. It is distasteful to many of us even to have to discuss it. But I have always found in my time here that the House is at its best when discussing a moral question; and this is above all, for me, a moral question. Therefore, without taking up more time, I make my position clear. Over the years, I have often found myself in a dilemma, as my right hon. Friends find themselves in a dilemma tonight. There have been times when my sense of loyalty allowed my better sense of other loyalties to be overridden, and I have trailed into the Lobby against my better judgment. Tonight, however, I shall follow my conscience.
I shall not burke at the final sanction. I do not like these codes and I shall vote against them.

9.49 p.m.

Mr. John Farr: The hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price) was his usual clear and interesting self tonight. He expressed an opinion which other hon. Members on both sides of the House have tried to pinpoint—the great difficulty in which people who farm in this country on a large scale find themselves when seeking to reconcile ever-increasing costs and expenditure with the need to produce more and more to maintain their income. I declare an interest in the matter, although I do not produce any of the animals mentioned in the four codes, except cattle. We produce cattle in Northamptonshire, but I am pleased to say that they are all reared in the traditional manner. The hon. Member for Westhoughton would not find any white veal calves on my farm because I do not have any.
The disagreement in the House is not on party lines. Most hon. Members on both sides of the House recognise that an improvement in the welfare of livestock will take place as a result of these four codes. The question is how big an initial step should we take. Most hon. Members who have spoken have taken the view that the Government's initial step of introducing the four codes is not enough. It seems to me a very small result of four years of deliberation since the Brambell Report to produce these four codes which serve to do no more than to guide farmers and other producers.
The Minister intervened in an earlier speech and said that de-winging would be forbidden under these codes. That is not the case. The whole point about these codes is that they forbid nothing. All is advisory. If they said that de-winging were forbidden or that something else were forbidden they would be of value, but even if the House approved these recommended codes, I could go tomorrow to the right hon. Gentleman's constituency and de-wing a lot of hens on his front doorstep without breaking the law.
Possibly the Minister intends later to introduce Orders to implement these codes of practice and to put some power behind them. At the moment we have

some very good intentions recommended by the Government, but if I am to support these codes of practice I want an assurance that sooner or later they will be introduced as statutory requirements and implemented by order or by some other form of agricultural legislation. The codes seem to me a long way from the Brambell standards and they would be acceptable to me only if they were to lead to the introduction of legislation.
I say that in the knowledge that the vast majority in farming concerned with the production of livestock welcome these four codes and would welcome their introduction as a statutory measure. The average farmer and the average livestock producer has nothing to hide. He cares for his stock properly and sees that his employees care for his stock properly, and he has no more sympathy than have hon. Members with those relatively few who are concerned to make as much money as they possibly can out of the business, regardless of the conditions.
There is profit to be made by the few pig producers who care to crush their stock together, and who resort to other methods to produce the leanest meat. There is money to be made for the few veal producers who care to emaciate their calves in an endeavour to satisfy some sophisticated London market where, for some funny reason, people want meat that is white. And there is profit to be made by those few people without principles or scruples who are determined to extract the largest number of eggs from the minimum possible floor space. It is no use the Minister thinking that these four codes of recommended treatment will have any effect on those people who, by and large, are out of the normal run of the farming community, and who will not pay heed to the message they get from this House until that message is backed up by statutory powers.
For a long time now I have hoped and believed that one day I shall see it quite clearly established that there is a vast difference in the nutritional value of food got from animals that are housed and caged in unnatural and unsatisfactory conditions compared with that got from animals which are looked after and cared for in a natural and traditional manner. I believe that one day the scientists will show that, nutritionally, the value of the


battery egg is not half that of the free-range egg. I believe that one day, and I hope that it will be before long, the scientists will show that this milky white veal meat which is being passed off in large hotels today is not a patch on the traditional joint of Leicestershire beef.

9.58 p.m.

Mrs. Joyce Butler: I have been impressed by the fact that those hon. Members who are farmers have, almost without exception, painted for us a picture of the best type of intensive farming and have indirectly condemned some of the practices which are permitted under these codes. Their evidence has been extremely valuable to us.
I would remind the House that what some of us are most concerned about are the conditions which will be permitted for the rearing of broiler chickens and white veal calves. I have in my hand a copy of HANSARD. The nub of the matter is that in this space one 6 lb. bird—a bird with a wing span of 33 inches or 36 inches—or two 3 lb. birds could be housed. What worries me is how, under those conditions, the stockman to whom the farmers have referred, with his knowledge and understanding of birds and animals can possibly exercise that compassion and understanding on them. How can he possibly do so? Are not these codes making it extremely difficult, if not impossible, for this to be done?
Ruth Harrison, without whom, I suppose, we might not have had the Brambell Report, the provisions of the Act, the Hewer Committee, or even this debate tonight, told me that she had never in all the visits she had paid to factory farms seen birds stocked as tightly as they are permitted to be stocked under these codes. She said she asked one of her farmer friends to stock at this rate, and she was appalled when she saw how close birds were kept together. Her evidence must carry some weight in view of her wide experience of this subject.
I am a layman in these matters. However, I was a member of the Littlewood Committee which considered animal experiments and I support—

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Ordered,
That the Proceedings on Government Business may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Dobson.]

Question again proposed, That the Amendment be made.

Mrs. Butler: I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill) said about the difficulty of defining stress in animals. It is difficult to see whether stress is taking place. We had a long discussion about this in the Littlewood Committee and I am strengthened in my view about this difficulty in considering the codes because there was not an animal behaviour specialist on the Hewer Committee. There were veterinary authorities, but nobody with special knowledge of animal behaviour.
When we are considering whether cruelty could take place under these codes, it is important for us to know the views of animal behaviourists on this issue. Articles have appeared in the Press critical of the codes and pointing out that nobody on the committee had special responsibility for this aspect of animal keeping.
So we must use our common sense and accept that if a calf cannot lie down with its legs fully stretched at right angles to its body or if a hen cannot stretch its wings outwards, and not just downwards, there may probably be a case for saying that they are suffering from stress. I do not believe that any responsible research laboratory would tolerate these confined conditions for the animals in its care. How many animal welfare organisations have accepted these codes? It is important that we know this information because we are considering animal welfare. There is no point in introducing codes unless we meet their requirements.
These codes have been described as being parallel to the Highway Code and we have been assured that the Act will prevent unnecessary cruelty. If a farmer is prosecuted for causing unnecessary cruelty under the Act, will he be able to call in aid his compliance with a code to prove that he is not being cruel to his animals? If so, one wonders whether the standards should be much higher than they are under the codes.
The Secretary of State referred to there being some control on the import of intensively reared animals in the form of meat. If the Ministry is so certain that these codes will permit a high standard in Britain—a standard much higher than that on the Continent—one would have thought that it would immediately have introduced some control on imports of meat from the Continent. If my right hon. Friend is saying, "We will watch the situation closely and, if necessary, take action", he must be admitting that the Ministry is not too sure on this point.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North (Mr. Ellis) referred to the use of antibiotics in intensive farming and suggested that we were waiting for the Swann Committee's Report to tell us authoritatively what the dangers are. But we already know the dangers. An article in the New Scientist in 1967 underlined this point. In it Dr. Bernard Dixon, the microbiologist, said:
There is now a mass of evidence showing that the misuse of antibiotics as growth-promoting food supplements and as mass prophylactic agents has caused a serious increase in the bacterial drug resistance in recent years. The threat to human and animal health has been made abundantly clear and warnings from experts in the field have mounted over the past year… Over the past few years microbiologists have published a stream of facts and figures illustrating the growing seriousness of the situation. Those experts I have spoken to … are now staggered that further inquiry"—
by this he is referring to the Swann Committee—
should be thought necessary.
In other words, we already have all the evidence—I have masses here with which I will not weary the House—to show that there is this relation between the ever closer stocking of birds and animals and the use of antibiotics on an ever wider scale and their effects on human drug resistance. The point in raising this is that the Minister has a copy of the Swann Committee's Report, and on the basis of the evidence we have it is fair to assume that this report will at least suggest that the stocking of animals and birds in intensive units should be less tight and that there should be greater ventilation and freedom to prevent these dangers of drug resistance in human beings.
What interests me is why we are now considering these codes without any knowledge of the Swann Committee's

recommendations when they may be published in a few weeks. A few weeks would make all the difference to the debates that we could have on this subject. It has been suggested that these codes can very easily—I do not think that it is an exaggeration—be brought up to a higher standard. But how quickly can this be done? Supposing the Swann Committee comes out very strongly on this point in a few weeks' time? Can the codes be amended within a few weeks? My experience of this House is that it is usually a matter of years before action of this kind is taken.
Again, we are assuming that if the codes are to be changed they will be changed for the better in the animal welfare sense. What the right hon. Member for Ashford (M r. Deedes) said about the relentless economic pressure on farmers makes it much more likely that these codes will be altered to bring about an even tighter stocking rate rather than the stocking rate suggested by Brambell. I should like assurance on this point because I am not at all happy about the situation we have had put before us tonight.

10.9 p.m.

Mr. David Crouch: Like other hon. Members, I was in Peru last year, as was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple). My abiding impression, against the vast backcloth of the Andes, was not of modern farming methods but of the most backward intensive human methods at producing human beings living in mad huts against mountains. That may not be altogether an irrelevancy because we in this country are in a different situation as an advanced industrial nation.
When I became a Member of the House I thought that I would here consider the humanities, having left the world of industry and business where my concern was with productivity, profits and production. The House has been rightly reminded tonight that it has a duty to stop and consider the humanities and humane questions. I do not dissociate the Ministers on the Front Bench tonight from that thought. They have been present pretty well throughout the debate. I sense that they and the Government feel that this is not a frivolous debate by any


means and that much sentiment and much sense has been aired tonight on this difficult question.
I must, however, join in criticising the two Ministers who have presented these codes of behaviour, not because I am against the idea of producing more food by more intensive methods, but because they have been too woolly in their approach to setting standards in what they have said they regard as an important factor in modern farming.
When I first became a Member one question which I had to ask was, what is Brambell? Who is he? "I had many letters about Brambell three or four years ago. There was then, and there has been ever since, great anxiety expressed to me in letters from my constituents, not all from emotional old ladies and old men, but often from young people concerned about the standards which we adopt in this country in manufacturing foodstuffs and other things—people concerned at the morality of our behaviour; in other words, our codes.
It was this public disquiet which brought the Brambell Committee into being. New intensive methods of farming had opened up opportunities for exploitation, and I am glad that in 1964 the Government appointed a committee of such distinction to look into this problem as a matter of urgency. I do not think that anyone today has criticised the membership of the Brambell Committee which was made up of men of distinction and ability.
We know that there are serious pressures on the food producer, on the farmer, and they were aired dramatically in an extremely serious and good speech by my neighbour, my right ron. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes). He may have come down on the side of the argument which I cannot support, but he saw both sides of it. However, I cannot agree with him about the need for greater production and greater profit—or, to be fair, simply the need for greater production.
Other factors are involved to which the Brambell Committee referred in its report. It said that it believed
in a flexibility that will permit progressive development of sound systems of husbandry "—

which would—
also cover the welfare of animals.
This is what we are discussing. We recognise the need for intensive production to cope with the problem of feeding ourselves and selling food abroad and o0btaining the right price for our foodstuffs. But we are concerned—and this is why the Brambell Committee was set up—to guard against the dangers of exploitation.
We hoped that the Brambell Committee would make some firm recommendations, and it did. It came up with very firm and clear recommendations, often in simple, one-line sentences. It said, however, in paragraph 220:
The Protection of Animals Act 1911 (and the corresponding Scottish Act of 1912) confers little protection on farm animals because of the inadequacy of its definitions in relation to farming practices, and the inability of the authorities to take effective enforcement action under it. In framing our recommendations therefore, we have realised that these will involve new legislation. specifically relating to the welfare of animals kept for food production.
The Brambell Committee came up with a recommendation, very strongly called for, for regulations.
What did we get, however? From the advisory committee, and now presented to the House, we have got codes of behaviour. I accept that they are a considerable advance and they go a long way towards the aims of all those of us who are concerned that there should not be exploitation which goes against the human grain. The Brambell Committee warned us in its report that those pressures would exist. It asked that the Government would make recommendations, and make them clear. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) so correctly reminded the House, the Minister in his codes has not been sufficiently specific, has not given us regulations and has given us phraseology which allows the greatest latitude of interpretation.
I ask the Minister to bear in mind what we are saying when he responds to this debate. In a way, we are congratulating the Minister and the Government for recognising the problem, but I am not congratulating them for the methods which they have suggested to tidy up the position.
I wonder whether these codes will be approved tonight. Will the House of Commons accept that animals should be made to live a half life only to satisfy our requirements in the intensive life which mankind is producing for itself? I am concerned with the direction in which mankind is today moving—towards more production, more profits, more productivity. Will we forget altogether the humanities and our feeling for humane treatment to all living things?
I am not an old fuddy-duddy yet. I believe that we have to match the difficult economic problems which face us, and intensive farming is one of the things that we must face. I ask the House to face up to it, and the Minister to accept that we must face up to it with humanity.

10.18 p.m.

Mr. Ronald Atkins: I share with other hon. Members pride in the fact that ours is a nation of animal lovers. It is one of the reputations for which we are well known throughout the world. I am pleased to say that I am quite emotional on this subject because I feel emotionally towards animals. One of my hon. Friends—the hon. Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Hazell), I believe—spoke about well-meaning people with, I fancy, a little bit of a sneer. I am not ashamed of that at all. I believe that compassion for animals is akin to compassion for human beings.
Compassion is indivisible. One cannot feel compassion for human beings and not for animals. If a person is against suffering by human beings, he is against suffering by all creatures. It is a question of soul. I know that the General Election will be fought on "soul" and I am sorry that we have made such a bad start, as souls extended to animals as well as to human beings.
I was astonished by the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. Ensor). He recently introduced a Private Member's Bill, which I supported, dealing with cruelty to animals during the last few minutes of their lives. How can he accept misery for animals during their whole life? He said that if we were as well informed as he is and went around the batteries and factory farms we would see that everything was all right, we would be quite satisfied and support the Government.
But it is because more people do not visit factory farms and broiler stations that they accept the situation, although I am not speaking in favour of their abolition. If more people in this nation of animal lovers were to see animals in conditions which they would not tolerate for their pets, they would condemn those conditions for farm creatures. They would not tolerate those conditions, and neither would inspectors, because it would be against the law. We have a split mind, and an attitude to farm animals which we would not tolerate for our domestic animals.
The hon. Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple) made the surprising statement that the hazards to animals on free range were much greater than those in a factory or broiler. He said that 500 sheep were destroyed during a flood last May, but hon. Members have spoken about tens of thousands of creatures being destroyed by fire. It is possible also for animals in buildings in low-lying areas to be drowned, as human beings are drowned in buildings. I fail to understand how animals can be safer in cooped up conditions than on a free range.
If we are to make this excellent start and lead the world into adopting a code for the safeguarding of animals, we should start with a really good one. To start with a poor one is a had example, and I hope that we can produce something better. The Brambell code is a minimum standard, not a high standard; it is the least we can accept.
An Opposition Front Bench spokesman estimated that the difference in cost between implementing Brambell to the full and the Government code would be £50 million. I put it to him that that is a wild guess. No one can know at this stage, and I challenge him to tell me how this figure was estimated. It is just a wild guess which will not help us.
I pay tribute to the altuistic speech of the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr). It is a question of competition between good farming, as described by the hon. Gentleman, and the worst practices of people who come into the business and who are often not farmers. The fact that these codes are insufficient will encourage the pseudo farmer to come in and use the worst methods, just as in


the past the absence of the Factory Acts encouraged the bad employer.
I consider that the small extra cost involved would not worry the taxpayer. He willingly pays between £300 million and £400 million a year to maintain the farming community and would gladly spend more on animals. I have the impression that, popular as are farmers in the mind of the British public, they are not as popular as animals.
During the debate we drifted into comparisons between poultry farming today and that which existed in the past. Nearly 30 years ago when I was a boy just leaving school I was in charge of a poultry smallholding. I can never remember foxes being a hazard in my district, nor can I remember my hens going through snow. Neither is a particular hazard in poultry keeping in this country.
From what has been said one would think that poultry keeping 30 years ago was thoroughly bad and that there were no good poultry farmers, but I feel that there has been a great deal of exaggeration. We must keep a sense of perspective. In the action we are taking tonight we must not pretend that we are abolishing broiler farming.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. Ensor) spoke about poultry no longer being a luxury. It is not only cheaper and much more plentiful. These days it is just not worth eating. It is not a luxury because it is not worth having. I have lost my taste for chicken entirely. We are concerned at the lowering of quality of our food. We are also concerned that in some cases it is being made dangerous for human beings. The subject of antibiotics has already been mentioned.
One reason why I support the code is that I like meat. For many years I was a vegetarian since I could not stand the thought of animals being slaughtered, but I like meat so much that I had to give in. But if I had to depend on present-day chicken flesh for my meat, then I should gladly become a vegetarian.
I am glad that the Government have taken action, but I regard their proposals as nothing more than a compromise. They are taking an historic step in introducing the code, but let us have a good one. The very least we can ask for is the Brambell code.

10.28 p.m.

Mr. David Lane: I support the Amendment which was moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden). During the short time I have been a Member of the House, I have had more letters about animals than on any other single subject. If we applied to all human problems the same intensity of feeling that animal problems evoke, we would soon get nearer the Utopia to which we all aspire.
In spite of all this correspondence I find it difficult to make up my mind on this matter. I do not criticise the majority of farmers, nor do I wish to be unfair to the Ministry of Agriculture, which has had a hard job in putting proposals before the House. But I feel that the codes are disappointing, and I add my voice to the amount of pressure being put upon the Government.
I do not find it wrong that we should be putting forward standards which are not mandatory. But, given that, it seems odd that the standards being proposed are so much less exacting than those proposed by the Brambell Committee. It could be argued that any code of practice which is not mandatory should be more and not less strict than what the Brambell Committee suggested.
Another serious criticism, in which I would echo what was said earlier, is that these codes in many respects are vague and imprecise. It would be difficult to use them as evidence in any prosecutions which may, unhappily, be necessary under the 1968 Act. They add up to a curiously lax interpretation of the words "unnecessary distress" in that Act.
I will not add to the many examples already given in the debate to illustrate the misgivings which are so widely felt about these codes. They have been expressed to me by a great many correspondents, notably by Profesosr Thorpe, Professor of Animal Ethology at Cambridge University, who was a distinguished member of the Brambell Committee. In that connection, I was very glad to hear the reference by the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Joyce Butler) to the views of the animal behaviourists.
On balance, it would be wrong for hon. Members to oppose or try to reject the codes. On the other hand, I shall be satisfied only if we have definite assurances


that there will be amendments soon in a number of directions. To be specific, I will list six amendments which I would like to see.
First, any animal should at least have room to turn round freely. Second, a dry bedded area should be provided for all stock. Third, palatable roughage must be readily available to all calves after one week of age. Fourth, sows may only be kept in stalls for feeding, and straw must be provided. Fifth, the Brambell recommendations for space for all poultry must be substituted for the recommendations in the codes of practice. Sixth, skip-a-day feeding systems, beak trimming of fowl, spectacles, and the dubbing of combs after the age of five days must be made illegal.
From all our party conferences in Brighton recently there came a common concern that, as we pursue efficiency, we must not forget or trample on other, deeper values which make up a civilised society in the best sense of that phrase. Nor should we forget the need to listen to the strength of public opinion. I believe that both those dangers are present here. I beg the Government to think again, and I hope that, before this debate ends, we shall have from the Minister much stronger assurances than we have received so far.

10.33 p.m.

Mr. Donald Chapman: As one of the hon. Members who have put their names to the Amendment, I hope that the House will allow me to say that it would be greatly apprecated if we could hear very soon the comments of the Minister in reply to this lung debate. Every hon. Member is anxious to hear my right hon. Friend's views on the strongly expressed opinions which have come from all parts of the House.
I will not go into the emotional issues which are at stake. I want simply to try to register one point in the Minister's mind. It is that there is no need to vote on this issue, provided that my right hon. Friend makes the kind of speech which will enable us to withdraw the Amendment. To my knowledge, no one is anxious to press it to a Division. The whole matter is in my right hon. Friend's hands, and everything depends on the quality of his reply.
We look for a speech from him on the following lines, "I have heard the strongly expressed views in the House tonight. I know that those views are very deeply and emotionally held, not only here but outside. I feel that there may be some force in them."
I want the Minister to say what he is prepared to do. The kind of undertaking that we would be grateful for from the Minister is something on the following lines. If he is prepared to say that he will reconstitute his advisory committee —and he cannot do much else, because it is in ruins with the resignations that he has had—in a form which we would leave him to judge, in the light of the debate, because we are not so impudent as to want to dictate to him in that respect, and will ask it immediately to consider the half-dozen major crucial issues which have been raised tonight, I am sure that we would be satisfied.
The hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Lane) listed six issues, but I do not think that he meant his list to be exclusive or all inclusive. However, he set out the kind of list which is of concern to most hon. Members who signed the Amendment.
If the Minister is prepared to say "I will ask the advisory committee to consider these issues again, because of the strength of feeling expressed; I will ask for a special report on these issues and, when it is considering its report, I will ask it specifically to meet the sort of point which has been broadly called the Brambell lobby"—I use the expression" Brambell lobby "in a complimentary sense, not in any pejorative sense; I mean the people dedicated to the Brambell standards as they have emerged in recent years—"expressed in a form best suited to the occasion; and if I then sense that there is a real division on the advisory committee about this matter, I, as the Minister, will make up my mind on these disputed standards which are at stake and I will come to the House with a report on the issues which have clearly been of concern tonight", I feel that it would be enough for most of us to say that we would not press the Amendment to a Division.
This would be in the best traditions of the House of Commons. This will have been a good debate in which we have


aired deeply held personal views and we will have had a Minister responding and saying, "I understand these views. I will now play my part in, first, getting new advice on each of the crucial issues at stake and, secondly, in coming to the House with my own views if I sense that a political decision is needed at the end of the day because the advisers are, in effect, divided."
If we could have that, I would certainly urge the sponsors of the Amendment, with myself, to withdraw it and to leave the matter in the hands of the Minister. But, if the Minister is not prepared to go as far as that or is in any sense wanting to go a good deal less far, I would urge the House to proceed to a Division. In those circumstances, I hope that we would be able to carry it not in a spirit of defiance, but as showing that these views are deeply held, that we have done our best to reach a compromise with my right hon. Friend, with perhaps honour satisfied all round, and that the standards of the House of Commons have been upheld on what is a crucial matter of personal conscience.

10.39 p.m.

Mr. Michael Jopling: I do not wish to delay the House long at this late hour.
I speak as a farmer who has farmed for many years, but has never practised any of the methods which were frowned upon by the Brambell Committee.
I have listened to every word which has been spoken in the debate. My conclusion is that if all hon. Members who have spoken had been asked to draft the codes, we would have as many different codes as hon. Members who have spoken. The matter is so much one of opinion, and animal behaviour is something which people do not fully understand.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman, the Minister, who is temporarily absent, but I trust that someone will pass this comment on to him, will tell us that we shall have a great deal more research in future on animal behaviour, about which we know all too little.
Like other hon. Members, I have had many letters on the subject. I am grateful for them, but, like the speeches that we have heard, they are all different and

would all have drafted the codes in one way or another. Some hon. Members who have spoken tonight would go far beyond Brambell. The hon. Lady the Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill), and the hon. Lady the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Joyce Butler), both showed that their preference is for something far beyond Brambell, because they both said that they would like a code which laid down that a bird in a cage should be able to stretch both wings. The Brambell Report gave only enough space for a bird to stretch one wing. There are those who would go far beyond Brambell, and those who would not go as far.
Some people have tended to regard the Brambell Report as a sort of tablet of stone on the basis of which everything should be done. I want to give two examples to show that Professor Hewer's Committee has improved on the Brambell Report.
Much as I dislike beak trimming, I cannot help feeling that it was wrong of the Brambell Committee to suggest that it should be prohibited. The codes say that beak trimming should be used only as a last resort, and only when more suffering would be caused in the flock if it were not done. They also say that it should be done by a skilled operator. Anyone who has seen cannibalistic poultry cannot imagine a more appalling habit and a more appalling sight. If cannibalism can be combated in the last resort by beak trimming, it should be allowed.
Brambell said that the docking of pigs should be prohibited, and that tail biting is rare under good management. I dispute that. Tail biting can happen in the best managed of herds. Nobody understands how it starts, and I think that it is far better to have the prohibition in the codes which say that it should not be carried out unless it is prescribed by a "vet"—because "vets" will not necessarily prescribe the docking of pigs' tails —and that it should be carried out only where it is really necessary.
In those two matters the codes have improved very much on the Brambell Report. They have also improved on Brambell with regard to the tethering of cattle. Brambell suggested in Recommendation 23 that the prolonged or permanent short tethering of cattle for beef production should be banned, but in the upland areas it is essential that cattle for


beef production are tethered. The reason for tethering in the north of England and in Scotland is traditional. It is not cruel. I have seen hundreds of cattle for beef production which have been tethered. This is mainly because in the upland areas there are no suitable buildings, no suitable open yards, because there is no straw, due to the fact that no corn is grown, and tethering is a much more economical way of keeping cattle. It would be wrong, in fact it would be ruinous, in upland areas such as that which I represent if the tethering of cattle for beef production was banned.
I yield to no one in my desire to eliminate unnecessary cruelty, but today most animals are more contented, better fed, better housed, and live longer than they would without man's interference and without the modern methods of agriculture. There are some who are insensitive to some of the practices which exist, and we condemn them. The Brambell Committee did a fine job, but I believe that in detail it was wrong, as I have tried to show the House.
The codes are a first-class first step towards getting better standards for the management of animals. Some people have said that the codes represent half a cake. I think that they represent very much more than half a cake, because I think that they go a long way to implementing the suggestions in the Brambell Report.
Although I do not like certain aspects of the codes—some of the wording is woolly, and so on—I hope that the House will accept them tonight as a wonderful first step in arriving at a better standard of management of farm animals.

10.45 p.m.

Sir Douglas Glover: I make no apology for speaking in this debate, because it is one of the greatest debates that this House has had for a long time. This subject is one that the House should debate. The debate is not about animals; it is about human beings and about the way in which they are in a civilised society treating animals in that society. Therefore, I wholeheartedly support the Amendments.
I sympathise with the Government in this matter, but it seems to me that this debate—and I am surprised that some hon. Members opposite oppose what the

Amendments try to do—is the sort of debate that would have taken place in this House in the early days of the Industrial Revolution. We have had many bitter party squabbles and debates about the Industrial Revolution, yet many of the early pieces of legislation that removed the crunch of that Industrial Revolution came from the Tories—Lord Shaftesbury and others.
Our opportunity tonight is the opportunity of bringing in a 10-hour Factory Act for animals. It is something on which the House should decide tonight. Throughout our history domestic animals have been our friends, and have been of enormous value to the people of the world, but only in during the last 20 or 30 years has the economic and industrial development of these animals begun to gather pace, and it has lately been gathering pace at an enormous rate.
This is a repetition of the situation that occurred in the early days of the Industrial Revolution. We have, therefore, an opportunity of putting on the Statute Book the first illuminating and humanitarian steps designed to see that this process does not go too far. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling), the Government and many agriculturists argue about it, but the question remains: do we, as human beings, go on having a higher standard of living because we are doing something to the domestic animal that in our hearts we know we should not do? This House has shown clearly in tonight's debate that the answer is a firm "No".
Nobody in the House wants to produce a code of conduct which will never be altered in the next 30 years. The House has reached the conclusion that the Government should not merely bring in a code of conduct but should bring in—as exemplified in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden), on which I congratulate him, as one of the best speeches I have ever heard in this House—a code saying that factory farming has limits beyond which this House will not sanction it, and that those limits will be laid down by law.
That is as far as I want to go. We are prepared to accept that a great deal more research will be carried out over


the years. Perhaps we shall not get it quite right; but I am sure that the majority in the House is convinced that the time has come for some specific chain action, with the power of law behind it, to see that these methods, introduced purely and simply for the economic advantage of the human race, will not be allowed to go any further. That is what the House wants the Minister to say tonight.
I agree with the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman) that if the Minister can say it in a strong enough manner we shall probably accept what he says, but we want from him a clear enunciation that this is now the road of progress that humanity is taking in dealing with this problem, and that we are not prepared just to accept a code of conduct which can be ignored by many people.
I think that that is the view that this House has taken tonight. I hope that we may avoid a Division, but I believe that in these matters it is often better for the House to divide and show its strength of feeling than leave it as a protestation of belief. But whichever way the debate finishes, I hope that the Minister has no illusions that in all quarters of the House there is a great desire for stronger measures and further action than he is prepared to take at the moment.

11.50 p.m.

Mr. J. B. Godber: I realise that the House wishes to come to a conclusion, and I shall be as brief as I possibly can.
I have sat through the whole of the debate. It has been a moving debate and one on which all of us will be able to look back with some pride, in that in this House we can spend this amount of time showing this manifest concern for animals on our farms. I doubt whether any other Parliament in the world would debate this subject in quite this way.
As I have listened to the debate it has seemed to me that it has resolved itself into three issues. The first issue was put most clearly by the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price) when he said precisely that what we are discussing is the morality of factory farming. That is one issue which has been put with

great depth of feeling on both sides of the House, and it is one which we can all understand and with which we can all sympathise. But it is one which, I believe, goes beyond the whole concept of these codes, because if one were seriously thinking of banning factory farming altogether one would have to approach it in a very different way indeed.
However, I recognise this instinctive feeling among many people throughout the country that there is something wrong here because it is unnatural. On the other hand, some hon. Members on both sides of the House have pointed out that some of the advantages in nature are not quite so manifest to those who are in closest contact. So, while recognising this feeling, it is not one which I myself go along with.
The second issue is the economic issue which was so clearly raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes), and I thought that he put the issue extremely clearly indeed. He reminded us of the economic advantages —though "disadvantages" might be the right word to use—that accrue from the use of some of the methods in factory farming, or intensive farming as I would prefer to call it. There is little doubt that many of the foods which are produced in this way would be much more expensive to the community if these methods of farming were eliminated. As my right hon. Friend pointed out, there is an economic necessity for the farming community at the present time to produce as cheaply as possible, and this undoubtedly affects the issue.
Related to this issue is that of imports. Thinking in terms of economic advantage, it becomes very important that if we are going to prevent production in this country by which our farmers would get some economic advantage, we must, in fairness to the farming community, prevent the importation of that particular type of production from overseas. The Secretary of State for Scotland was quite specific in saying that he was not prepared to make recommendations of this kind.
I take this argument further and say that if we are looking at this matter, as I know hon. Members are, from the point of view of humanitarianism we must be equally concerned if the birds or the animals which are produced and turned into meat


for us are produced abroad. If we restrict production here and allow free importation, all we do is transfer the cruelty which we believe is happening from this country to another.

Mr. Burden: rose—

Mr. Godber: Will my hon. Friend forgive me? He has interrupted quite a number of times today. I am on a perfectly clear point, and I hope that he will follow the argument.
It is simply that, if one is really concerned, as, I believe, every hon. Member is, about cruelty, one must remember that it is just as much cruelty if it occurs across the Channel as if it occurs here. Therefore, we must ensure that, if we are to put severe restrictions on our home production, we must do the same for imports as well, not only from the standpoint of the economic argument for the farmer but from the standpoint of the humanitarian argument with which everyone in the House is concerned.

Mr. Ellis: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Godber: I have just declined to give way to my hon Friend. Time is getting on, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me. He has made his points, and I hope that he will allow me to make mine.
We shall expect from the Government a clear indication of where they stand on the issue which I have just stated.
The third issue, as I see it, is more of a technical one, namely, whether the proposals of Professor Brambell and his colleagues set the correct level to prevent hardship and cruelty or whether the level should be at another point. I have been a little surprised at the criticisms which have been directed at Professor Hewer and his colleagues on the Minister's advisory committee.
I have tried to listen to all sides in this matter. I have had the advantage of listening to Professor Brambell. I have had the advantage of listening to Professor Hewer. I have discussed the question with the farmers' leaders, and I have met those who are concerned with factory farming, including, among others, Mrs. Ruth Harrison, who takes a particular interest in these matters. I have tried genuinely to listen to all points of view, and I can see in all of them some elements

about which one can think seriously and probably support. But what we are trying to determine here is something which will produce a degree of safeguard which is reasonable and which the House can accept.
Many people have used Professor Brambell's name almost as though he had arrived at a magic decision which was precisely at the right level. I have no desire to take issue with Professor Brambell. I have read his report and I have discussed matters with him. But I have listened also to Professor Hewer, and I and that he puts forward some very cogent arguments in favour of some of the proposals which he has made. It is not a matter of black and white, that Brambell is perfect and others are wrong. We must recognise that it is a matter of judgment. That has come out clearly in our debates in the House.
I note that in today's Daily Telegraph Professor Brambell is reported as saying, when asked whether these codes should be accepted or rejected:
I am not on one side or the other. Nor, as the Report made clear, am I against intensive husbandry. I want to see it run on reasonable lines.
I think that that represents the view of most right hon. and hon. Members.
There are several points here, and I thought that my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) brought some of them out very well. He concentrated on battery hens and veal calves. I have little experience of battery hen keeping. I have seen a great many battery cáges, and I have seen different stocking rates, I have seen some conforming to Brambell, I have seen some which conform to the Ministry's proposals, and I have seen some which are even more closely confined. My view is that the code will go some way to meet the case. But I think that the Minister will be well advised to keep the matter under close review. If he has his present codes and then keeps this particular issue under close review, that will be well worth doing.
I was not happy about the picture of veal calves which appeared in the R.S.P.C.A. leaflet. It appeared to indicate that that was in accordance with the Minister's proposals, but when I read the codes they seemed to me to provide a measure of protection which would not


allow animals to be kept in conditions shown in that picture. I am sorry that that was not made clear in the leaflet.
The proposals in the code in relation to calves lying and being able to stretch out should be sufficient, but I should like to see them in operation, and no doubt this is another aspect which the Minister will want to keep under close review. But I feel a measure of concern about the feeding of veal calves. I am not sure whether there should be this allowance in respect of calves getting food with no roughage at all. It is significant that the Universities Federation for Animal Welfare, which is a body whose views I respect, has sent out a note drawing particular attention to this point. The federation claims that calves are ruminant animals.
When I discussed the point with Professor Hewer he assured me that as long as the rumen was not allowed to develop no harm would be done, and he may be right. Mrs. Harrison, on the other hand, tells us that there is clear evidence that there is a craving on the part of calves and that this results in their gnawing the wood in the partitions. It seems to me that this is an issue which should have further consideration. I am not suggesting withdrawing the code now, but I suggest that it is a point which the Minister should watch carefully to see whether it can be shown that as long as the rumen does not develop no hardship is involved.
Comment was made about the iron deficiency. I understood the Secretary of State for Scotland to say firmly that we are to have regulations about that. No hon. Member will wish calves to be artificially deprived of sufficient iron in their diet. In view of the assurance, it seems to me that we can be satisfied on that point but not necessarily on the other point.
I gather from the noise that some hon. Members do not like what I am saying. I am trying honestly to present a serious issue in the way in which I think it should be handled and I hope they will bear with me for a few more minutes. I have sat throughout the debate and I have tried to assess the situation honestly in the interests of the animals.
I cannot help regretting that some hon. Members have spoken so strongly against the codes because it is worth recalling to the House that the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons and the British Veterinary Association support the codes. That cannot be brushed aside. Those bodies certainly have no advantage from the codes. They are the people constantly in contact with the animals concerned—far more than is any hon. Member. They believe that these codes are an advance. The House should weigh that carefully before seeking the rejection or even a limitation of the codes.
The codes are entirely the Government's responsibility. The Opposition have not been consulted about them, nor should the Opposition have been consulted in such a matter. But I believe that the codes are a first step. It may well be that there will be additions later—and it may be quite soon; I do not wish to set down a time scale. I have mentioned two factors which I believe require careful consideration by the Minister and I hope that he will give an assurance about them.
Subject to these comments, I think that the House would be wise tonight to allow these codes to go forward, and then to keep the closest watch on the situation thereafter. I hope that those who have been critical tonight will take the opportunity of visiting farms and seeing animals in these conditions. In particular, I hope that those who have suggested that there is a large degree of cruelty will visit our farms, because the one thing I know is that the great majority of our farmers are just as conscious as any hon. Member of the need to avoid cruelty. I am sure that the whole farming community would resent any imputation that they were being cruel.
In my view, these codes make some measure of advance, and I therefore hope that the House will allow them to go through.

11.5 p.m.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Cledwyn Hughes): We have come to the end of a most remarkable debate upon a subject which is of deep concern to all of us. We have had the opportunity of seeing the House of


Commons at its best. We have been debating a great moral issue without regard to party affiliation, and it is a privilege to have been here to listen to it. Most of us have received representations about the animal welfare codes from organisations and from individuals who are anxious to ensure that we set the highest possible standards. My colleagues and I in the Government understand this very well, and I should like to say a few words about the way in which we have approached our task. I hope that we have done so with no less humanity and compassion than anyone else who has taken part in this debate.
The demands of the growing population and the ability of people to buy more food in greater variety than ever before has meant that since the end of the last war we have seen in this country a continuing development in intensive farming. This has been happening in other developed countries as well. Of course, intensive farming is nothing new, because in winter it has always been the case that animals have been brought indoors and tethered for lengthy periods. This is especially true of Scotland and parts of Wales.
But intensive farming on the scale of the last 20 years has brought its special problems and placed new responsibilities upon the agricultural industry. If animals and poultry are kept indoors permanently for the purpose of feeding the population, Parliament and the country must be satisfied that standards of welfare are adequate, and that distress and strain and suffering are prevented.
It was for this reason that Mr. Soames set up the committee under the chairmanship of Professor Rogers Brambell. This committee performed a most valuable service and I should like to endorse the tribute which my right hon. Friend has paid to its members. Professor Brambell is a neighbour and a friend of mine, and I should like to offer him my personal thanks for his work. The report of his committee was published in December, 1965, and the sequence of events since then is important, because I think that the Government have acted with sympathy.
My predecessor, the Leader of the House, took action in the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1968 to make it an offence to cause pain and

distress to farm animals. Section 1 makes it an offence to cause, or knowingly to allow, livestock on agricultural land to suffer unnecessary pain or unnecessary distress. Section 3 empowers Ministers to prepare and, subject to parliamentary approval, to publish codes of welfare recommendations for the guidance of those responsible for livestock. This is the basic statutory provision upon which the codes are founded.
Furthermore, as recommended in the Brambell Report, an advisory committee under the chairmanship of Professor Hewer was set up. This committee, on the basis of the recommendations of the Brambell Report, drafted the codes of practice which are before the House today, and will advise the Government in a continuing capacity upon the problems of animal welfare.
I wish to stress that the Hewer Committee is as distinguished and independent of the Government as was the Brambell Committee. In other words, we are dealing with two committees composed of the most eminent and independent persons, both of which have advised the Government.
Scientific knowledge on questions of density and stress and strain in animals and poultry is far from complete. The Hewer Committee took evidence from a wide range of organisations and, on the basis of that evidence and the most up-to-date scientific information and its own observations, produced the codes before the House. We did not accept them uncritically. We studied them for a long time. We listened to what hon. Members told us and when we discussed the matter we have been aware of the concern which hon. Members have felt on the subject. We examined the codes in detail and we took careful note of all the representations which had been made to us.
Indeed, Professor Brambell came to see me to discuss them and, following that discussion, I asked Professor Hewer to consider whether it would not be right to give greater prominence to the principles on which the codes are based. This has now been done, on page one of each code, and I know that Professor Brambell has been grateful for this.
Another point of importance which the House should remember is that out of nearly 200 recommendations in the codes of practice, there is disagreement on only


eight. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill) will bear this in mind, for I know that she speaks with great sincerity and knowledge of the subject. When she speaks of the codes being a lukewarm product of the Government, she should remember that out of the 200 recommendations there is disagreement on very few of them and that a general welcome has been given to over 90 per cent. of them.
I come to the main points of disagreement. First, space allowances for poultry. I emphasise again that it is not possible to make a comparison between the Brambell standards and these recommendations. In the period since Professor Brambell and his colleagues reported, Parliament has taken action—in the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1968—and has made provision for codes of guidance.
The codes do not say exactly what farmers must do, and they do not lay down upper or lower limits enforceable by law. A farmer could follow the advice in the codes and, through bad management—and management is vital in our consideration of this subject—cause pain or distress to his animals or birds and so be liable to prosecution. Thus, the poultry codes do not recommend any particular density of stocking for birds, either maximum or minimum. They say, however, that at certain specified densities the management of the unit will be crucial to the birds' welfare.
Secondly, freedom for cattle and pigs to turn round, a matter which many hon. Members have raised. The Hewer Committee was not convinced that this was essential, although it was convinced that cattle and pigs should have adequate freedom of movement and that cattle should have freedom to groom and, if penned, room to lie down on their sides and extend their legs within the pen. This is recommended in paragraph 20 of the draft code for cattle. An advantage of single pens for cattle and pigs is hygiene and reduction in the risk of disease. The code seeks to preserve this.

Sir Douglas Glover: These are the same arguments used to defend slavery 150 years ago.

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) asked how many visits the advisory committee had

made to intensive units. Committee members made 39 visits occupying 40 days.

Mr. Burden: That is not quite an answer. I asked how many factories as a committee. not as individuals.

Mr. Hughes: This is what I am dealing with. Committee members made 39 visits occupying 40 days. They included visits to poultry, pig and veal units. They consulted 140 organisations, received replies from 134, and received additional oral evidence from farm, veterinary and welfare organisations. I can tell the House that the Hewer Committee did its work in considerable detail and with enthusiasm and I have no criticisms to make of it.

Mr. Turton: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House why Major Scott, who resigned from the Committee, said that he thought the Committee was far too large and that it had never visited any poultry establishment?

Mr. Hughes: This is contrary to what I have just told the House. Major Scott was a member of the committee and resigned. He wrote to me on 22nd September. I much regret that he felt it necessary to resign. In view of what the right hon. Gentleman has said about Major Scott, perhaps I should read from his letter giving the reasons for his resignation. He said:
You will no doubt appreciate that on occasions matters involve a conflict of loyalties inevitably arise. I must, therefore, ask you to accept my resignation from the Farm Animal Welfare Advisory Committee. I may say that this action is in no way prompted by my disagreement with certain aspects of the recently published Codes but in the belief that agreement on acceptable conditions of farm animal welfare can only be achieved by a Committee consisting of members who are not connected directly or indirectly with some of the vested interests involved. In my capacity as Scientific director of U.F.A.W., I would of course be prepared if requested to make technical information available to such a Committee and to represent the views of my Federation.
The hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) raised the question of the status of the codes and asked why they were not mandatory. The codes should not be regarded in isolation from other vital welfare provisions in the 1968 Act. The Act makes it an offence to cause livestock unnecessary pain or distress and provides for inspections of farm premises.


The codes will provide farmers and stockmen with authoritative advice on welfare matters. Some people claim that any welfare code is useless unless it is enforced by law. This is not true and Parliament has agreed. The Highway Code has been used as an example. Is it useless because it is not mandatory? What must be enforced—and this is the crux—is Section 1 of the Act.

Mr. Niall MacDermot: Surely the point is that the Highway Code sets very high standards. If one can succeed in proving that one acted in accordance with the Highway Code one will not be convicted. If this parallel is to be followed, what we need is very high standards here.

Mr. Hughes: I believe that these codes set a very high standard. There is disagreement on some of them, but I believe that they are a model for the rest of the world.
The right hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) raised the point about calves as ruminants. The advisory committee is satisfied that scientific evidence supports the view that calves will not suffer from postponement of rumination provided that the liquid diet provides all the known nutrients required by the calves. I agree that this is clearly a matter on which there is considerable feeling and one which should be looked at again.
The hon. Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Joyce Butler) referred to the Swann Report on the use of antibiotics in animal husbandry. As my hon. Friend said, I have now received the report, which is an extremely important one, and it will be studied very carefully and published as soon as possible. It would not be appropriate for me at this stage to comment on its findings, but if it has the kind of bearing on the codes which my hon. Friend has mentioned, we shall have to take very careful account of it in due course.
I want to rebut any accusation that this is a conflict between large-scale farming interests, on the one hand, and welfare interests, on the other. I believe that this would be a complete distortion of the truth. Certainly there are large-scale intensive operations, but the House should remember that medium and small farmers farm intensively nowadays. Any

implication or accusation that farmers as a body treat their animals inhumanely is quite untrue. The State Veterinary Service has already carried out 10,000 inspections under the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1968, and these have not shown any low standard of animal welfare. Indeed, the standard of animal welfare in British agriculture is higher than in most countries and as high as the best in the world.
Quite apart from the moral aspect, it is in the farmer's interest to look after his animals properly. It is not without significance that the British Veterinary Association, as has been mentioned, and the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons have expressed their general support for the codes. Furthermore, the State Veterinary Service, whose duty it is to ensure that high standards of farm animal welfare are maintained, will now have an Act of Parliament and the codes as a sanction and a guide when carrying out its duties.
To those hon. Members who have argued, with great sincerity and persuasion, that they would like to see some of the recommendations amended, I would say this. First, the codes are not the laws of the Medes and Persians, never to be changed. I would prefer to say that they are experimental in the sense that we shall be anxious to see over the coming months how they operate, what the veterinary surgeons, both in and out of the State service, have to say about them and what the R.S.P.C.A. and the welfare organisations tell us about their operation.
Secondly, Professor Hewer's Committee will continue to study these problems and he has promised me that his committee will give me its views.

Mr. Chapman: On what?

Mr. Hughes: I hope that my hon. Friend will contain himself and be patient.
I have carefully listened to all the speeches which have been made and I have read the debate which took place in another place last week. Whilst I believe that the codes as drafted, produced by an independent committee, set reasonable standards, I am conscious of the deep feeling. I therefore undertake to the House that I will instruct the State Veterinary Service to report to me


on how the codes are working in the field. My right hon. Friend and I will then ask the advisory committee to consider that report, together with any new knowledge which may be available, and to advise us on any changes which it considers should be made in the codes.
I want, however, to give the House the further undertaking that I shall place in the Library of the House during the next Session a report from the State Veterinary Service, which will be as full as the limited time for which the codes will have been in operation will allow. This will enable the House, if necessary, to call for a debate on the subject. It is likely that by then we shall have some useful reports and observations from the veterinary profession and the other interested organisations which I have mentioned.
In addition, in view of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman), whom I asked to be patient, I will refer immediately back to the advisory committee the points on which disagreement has been expressed here today. Furthermore, if the committee cannot reach agreement, I and my right hon. Friend will undertake to consider whether any amendment should be brought back to the House, and that will be our decision.
My anxiety is not to be rigid about a matter on which such deep feeling has been expressed. The codes should be given an opportunity so that we can see how they work out. I hope that the undertakings which I have given will alleviate the anxiety of some of my hon. Friends.

Mr. Chapman: My right hon. Friend is trying to give an assurance which will enable me not to vote in this matter. Do I understand him to say that he will try to distinguish from this debate the half dozen or so crucial issues, that he will ask the committee specially to report on them and that, when he receives the report, or if he discovers that there is no agreement on the advisory committee, he will come forward with a political recommendation to the House based on his decision as to what to recommend?

Mr. Hughes: Certainly, it must be a decision for Ministers. I hope that the House understands clearly what I now

have in mind. I am proposing the most careful examination of the working of the codes over the next few months.

Mr. Turton: Will the report of the advisory committee be available to the House if there is a disagreement, so that we shall know on what points the Minister has made his decision?

Mr. Hughes: The right hon. Gentleman knows that reports of advisory committees to Ministers are not normally made public, but perhaps he will allow me to consider his point.

Mr. Heffer: Will my right hon. Friend —[Interruption.] Some hon. Members might not be interested in voting on this; I am. Will my hon. Friend say what will be the time limit for the report back to the House? It is rather important.

Mr. Hughes: I think that I used the words "the next Session". Obviously, one will need to give a reasonable amount of time so that our advisers, the State Veterinary Service and, if necessary, the British Veterinary Association and the R.S.P.C.A., can have an opportunity to see how the codes are working in practice.—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Hughes: I am seeking to be as courteous as possible, and I have given undertakings that should satisfy my hon. Friends.
No country in the world has gone to such lengths as our own to study animal welfare and to set standards. From time to time we are criticised, but it is this kind of debate and the kind of action the Government are now taking through the codes which give us the right to speak confidently of Britain's good record. Let us not denigrate the codes. Let us give them a warm welcome, because they set standards which are unique for any country in the world. The disagreement is over a very small area, and I see no reason why it should not be resolved in the light of the undertakings which I have given.
I hope that the House will accept the codes.

Mr. Burden: In view of the strong assurances given by the Minister, and of the strong opinion in the House which, I believe, will lead him to come back with recommendations which will meet


hon. Members' wishes, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Main Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House takes note of the Paper entitled Code No. 2 of the Codes of Recommendations for the Welfare of Livestock, relating to pigs, a copy of which was laid before this House on 26th June, and approves the Code contained in paragraphs 1 to 33 thereof. —[Mr. Cledwyn Hughes.]

Resolved,
That this House takes note of the Paper entitled Code No. 1 of the Codes of Recommendations for the Welfare of Livestock, relating to cattle, a copy of which was laid before this House on 26th June, and approves the Code contained in paragraphs 1 to 36 thereof. —[Mr. Cledwyn Hughes.]

Resolved,
That this House takes note of the Paper entitled Code No. 4 of the Codes of Recommendations for the Welfare of Livestock, relating to turkeys, a copy of which was laid before this House on 26th June, and approves the Code contained in paragraphs 1 to 53 thereof.—[Mr. Cledwyn Hughes.]

Resolved,
That this House takes note of the Paper entitled Code No. 3 of the Codes of Recommendations for the Welfare of Livestock, relating to domestic fowl, a copy of which was laid before this House on 26th June, and approves the Code contained in paragraphs 1 to 62 thereof.—[Mr. Cledwyn Hughes.]

SUPPLEMENTARY BENEFITS (PAYMENT)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ernest G. Perry.]

11.32 p.m.

Mr. R. Gresham Cooke: For some time I have had doubts about the control exercised over supplementary benefits which are paid out. One or two cases have come to notice in my constituency in which people as well as receiving supplementary benefits have been found to have jobs on the side.
My doubts were brought to a head earlier this year when a well-spoken man with an Irish brogue went to my constituency office and produced a hard luck story about not having fair treatment from the social security office. I put forward his case for sympathetic treatment,

as a result of which he was paid £39 over 14 days. Further inquiries were made into his position, and it was found that he did not live in my constituency at all. He purported to come from a respectable address, but in fact he had only an accommodation address for which he paid a pound or two.
I arranged for him to be interviewed by the social security office. When he turned up at my office in a van, he must have smelt a rat that something was to happen because he disappeared and has not been seen from that day to this.
The doubts raised in my mind over this matter were confirmed by a startling article in the Spectator on 6 September by an official of the Supplementary Benefits Commission, an article which, I hope, was read by the Minister. It told a horrifying story of widespread frauds and "fiddling" and such abuse of the system to make it almost a mockery.
Expenditure on supplementary benefits in the last four years has risen in a startling way. Four years ago it was £274 million. I understand that today it is £487 million, a rise of about 80 per cent. Unemployment pay has risen from £55 million to £137 million.
Since the Government conducted a widespread advertising campaign on supplementary benefits, 750,000 new claimants have come forward. Naturally, I am delighted that genuine new claimants have been satisfied and that many people have become entitled to these benefits. But, with £213 million more being paid out than four years ago on hundreds of thousands of new benefits, laxity has come into the system. I believe that Social Security offices are swamped, and there is insufficient investigation into cases.
Let us look for a moment at the swamping of offices. As the Report of the Supplementary Benefits Commission shows, continuing awards have risen by 50 per cent. since 1965—the old days of National Assistance—immediate payments have gone up by 80 per cent., and the number of callers at offices by 50 per cent. The commission deals with half as many people again as three years ago, and on Fridays things are a mad rush. One civil servant said on the radio that he believed that frauds were not 1 per cent., as the Government said, but possibly 5 per cent.
of the amount paid out. That is equal to about £24 million of taxpayers' money going down the drain.
The morale of the officers in these offices is low. I quote from a letter which I have received from the North of England. It says:
I can assure you that incredible abuses are practised and, as a result of Government and departmental attitudes, the morale and interest of the staff, of which I have been one for 12 years, is at an all time low. There is connected with every social security office a hard core of individuals who intend to and do live well on State benefits, and their number is growing. The general attitude to the department now seems to be, 'Give them what they ask for, rather than have trouble or have them writing to their M.P.s.'
If the Government are giving those instructions, I hope that it is not for any reason of electoral popularity.
This is not a class matter. The middle classes are just as much against their own kind as are manual workers. A few weeks ago, I announced that I would try to raise a debate on this subject. My intention was reported only in the Daily Telegraph, the Sun and the News of the World, but I have been inundated with letters about it from all parts of the country.
To illustrate the strong feelings, let me quote a few of them. The first is from what I take to be a middle-class address in Middlesex. It says:
As an example, a friend of mine, married but with no children, has not worked since mid-June, and his wife has not worked since the end of July. In the two years that I have known them, they have never saved a penny, and just scraped through each week. I don't know what story they are spinning down at the Social Security office, but they can afford to go down the pub three times a week and now he tells me he's thinking of buying a car shortly. He claims that he is not draining the country's resources but merely receiving back what he has paid in, as he is entitled to.
Another letter, from Harpenden, says:
My sister has found herself in a most unfortunate situation. She has occupied a flat for 14 years, paying rent to her landlady, who has recently died. This lady, it is now disclosed, was a tenant, not permitted to sublet, and has been drawing National Assistance, not disclosing that she has been subletting and receiving rents.
A working man writes from Carmarthen:
I am a working man, honest and hard working, looking at these scoundrels around

a small place like Carmarthen town, about the place, doing nothing, strong and healthy as they are. They have been at it for years. There was a brother and sister, and this is only one instance. They spent five years in a caravan on the outskirts of the town, doing absolutely nothing, and going down twice a week for their social money…
I have a letter from Hastings saying:
There are many scroungers and swindlers in the town.
A well-known man writes from Luton, saying:
One of my staff wished to draw a benefit for his mother-in-law, who was seriously ill and has since died. Instead of going to the Supplementary Office he went to the wrong building and had to be redirected, but in this office, Phoenix House, Mill Street, Luton, which is newly constructed, he found the staircase blocked up by young men drinking beer and wine with numerous empty bottles everywhere. On reaching the reception, the room was thick with smoke and cigarette ends were scattered all over the floor in spite of a notice saying, 'No Smoking'. When the applicants were called they made little attempt to move, but remained talking and smoking obviously enjoying an idle day. Luton has always had a very low quota of unemployed, probably one per cent., and there are today many unfilled jobs in industry here.
I quote that to show the sort of discontent that there is over this matter.
Many correspondents point to immigrants who are allowed benefits on arrival—I suppose until they get a job, if need be. One health visitor has drawn my attention to a number of cases.
What is the position about Irish immigrants? An insurance investigator writes:
I am an insurance investigator. While waiting to see the head clerk"—
when he visited a local social security office—
I overheard three Irish women. They had been here two days and were Irish immigrants with four children between them.
What is the position about Irish immigrants? Are they entitled to social security on coming to this country?
What are these frauds that people write about? Among some of the unemployed I am told that the abuse is particularly marked, and genuine old-age pensioners are reduced to tears by pushful young men elbowing them on one side, some with bulging wallets. But the main cases brought to my notice are those people who conceal that they are working on the side at fruit picking, scrap dealing, doing builders' subcontracting work, house decorating, and so on.
Then there is a certain amount of forgetting or concealing, if a man is franker, that his wife is working. The new rule brought in by the Ministry recently concerning those under 45 years of age, that the benefit is withdrawn after four weeks if a job is offered to them and not taken, should, I claim, be extended to all classes of unemployed. It seems to have had a salutary effect. I understand that six out of 10 of those interviewed have found jobs. I understood the Minister to say today that 80,000 of these people had gone back to work. If so, surely if that was extended over all classes of unemployed, it would have a very satisfactory effect.
Another matter complained about is the fictitious case of desertion by a husband. I instance the extraordinary story of the wife who claimed that she was living with an identical twin of her husband who reappeared again, and so on. There are other stories about husbands who are found hiding in cupboards when people call.
There are cases of camp followers who live in caravans around American air force bases—a motley collection of single women, separated wives and prostitutes, who seem to live in some comfort and luxury and get their supplementary allowances.
What are the remedies? First, I suggest that as a long-term remedy employment offices should in future be in the same building as social security offices to ensure close liaison between employment and productivity and social security officials. In my area they are quite separate. In fact, the employment and productivity office is in another constituency.
Secondly, I suggest that there should be an investigator attached to every social security office—an ex-policeman, ex-military policeman, or retired detective. Such a man, on a bicycle, could follow up some of these cases. He could get around the whole area. For instance, the Irishman who took his £39 was only interviewed on the doorstep. If he had been followed into his home, no doubt more would have been found out about him.
It is suggested to me by a landlord in Southampton that the rent allowance, when paid, should be paid on a receipted rent book. He points out that the Government

are losing twice over. They are losing when a rent allowance is paid and then spent on something else and then the landlord, when the rent is not paid, claims the arrears against his income tax.
My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Fortescue) has made a deep study of this matter. He has suggested that independent medical certificates should be asked for in cases of back-ache and minor diseases of that kind and that young, single men living with their parents should have their parents' income investigated as well as their own.
Lastly, I should like to get down to the truth about the payment of supplementary benefits to strikers. The Parliamentary Secretary told me at Question Time today that about 3,300 supplementary benefits payments totalling about £22,300 were made to the dependants of strikers in the South Wales blast furnace dispute, an average payment of £6 15s. During the strike at Ford's in March about 15,000 men were paid an average of £6 a week, and at Vauxhall's, at Ellesmere Port, teams of social security men were brought in to pay out the benefits.
In that case an article in the Spectator said:
All tax refunds were completely ignored in calculating their requirements, which meant that even people with refunds up to £20 a week, and with few commitments still received money.
Perhaps the Minister will tell us a little more about that.
The Daily Telegraph went into this at some length and took the matter up with officials of the Ministry. It quoted one official as saying that the rules
were not as clear on this point as they might be. A striker could claim that tax refunds were refunds of capital not to be taken into account in calculating benefit. If the striker digs his heels in, he will get away with it.
If strikers are being paid strike money, plus refund, plus social security supplementary benefits, it seems to me that that is really an inducement to keep on striking.
In his statement today the Minister of State was not quite clear, to us anyhow, about the matter. He first said that these refunds were taken into account, and then I understood him to say that they were


only partially taken into account. Perhaps he will tell us what the truth is.
We want a frank and open discussion on this whole question of fraud and fiddling of the supplementary benefits. We want an admission that frauds go on. There were 6,000 prosecutions last year, and I believe that that is only the tip of the iceberg, because about £600 million a year is being paid out in supplementary benefits and unemployment benefits. How much is misapplied? I believe that tens of millions of pounds are involved. The Government are responsible for that, and they must come clean and make a statement on the whole position.

11.47 p.m.

Mr. Tim Fortescue: I agree with a great deal of what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke). One thing that he did not say, but which I am sure that he would want to say, is that nothing he said, or that I have said, implies any criticism of those who work behind the counters in social security offices. I have seen them at work, and I have worked alongside them. They do a first-class job. The criticism is not of them, but of the rules which they are expected to apply.

11.48 p.m.

The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Mr. David Ennals): I am aware that there is a good deal of public concern about the sort of allegations made by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke). They have been repeated in a number of newspapers, and they were published in an article in the Spectator.
The Spectator article to which the hon. Gentleman referred gave some examples of the ways in which there can be an abuse of the social security provisions. What it could not do—and what no one can do—was to produce some firm estimate of what proportion, either of benefits paid or of recipients, is in any way involved in abuse. My estimate is that it is a very small proportion indeed, but that does not mean that one should not be concerned about this.
The important thing is to get this problem into proportion. A great deal of damage can be done to the social security system, to the officers who administer it,

and to those genuine people who wish, and need, to take advantage of it, if it can be brought into disrepute. There are certainly some scroungers who take advantage of National Insurance and supplementary benefits—the anti-social minority who pretend that they are unable to obtain employment when they have made no real effort to find it, and some who exploit the sickness benefit provisions. There is scope for abuse among the so-called deserted wives, and some who have retired early on generous occupational pensions yet claim unemployment benefit when they are not genuinely seeking employment. These are forms of misuse of the system.
But we must keep the matter in proportion. These cases represent a small proportion of the population and of the beneficiaries. The vast majority of those who receive benefit from the Supplementary Benefits Commission—about 2¾ million people—are old people, the retired, the sick, widows, the disabled, or deserted wives. There is an element of abuse, about which we must be very careful and with which we must seek to deal.
I do not think that the public is fully aware of just how much is being done and it is a good thing that we should put on record what is being done—because although I much appreciate the intervention of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Fortescue), who said that nothing that he or his hon. Friend said reflected upon the efficacy or efficiency of the work of the Supplementary Benefits Commission officers, he must accept that this point is not taken in the country, and that the more criticisms that are made of the way in which the system works the more it would seem to reflect, quite unfairly, on the way in which the commission's officers do their work. They have a difficult job to do. They have to sort out each claim and reach a judgment on the question whether it is a fair or unfair one. It would be easy for them to take instructions which would require them to be so rigid and unbending in their approach that some people would go to the wall and those genuinely in need would not have their needs met.
A great deal of work is being done to counter abuse, and I want to give some examples. The hon. Member mentioned the workshy. Perhaps that category


applies especially to young people who may be unwilling to work and would prefer to live on benefits. Last year, we took a very important measure to try to deal with this. The hon. Member quite rightly gave the figures. From October last year to August this year 80,000 cases of young single men—aged 45 and under —in areas where there was employment were told that they could have benefit for four weeks and no more; it would then be expected that they would be in employment.
But it would be wrong to assume that all the 80,000 were work-shy; many of them had not yet obtained a job, and did afterwards obtain a job. But the fact that this system has worked so successfully is a tribute to those who have administered it. The hon. Member said that it should be extended to all categories of claimant. We must be careful. We might be dealing with a married man, and we would not want to impose hardship upon his wife and children because he might not be able to obtain a post. We have to consider the cases very carefully.
Those who were prosecuted for committing the offence of obtaining unemployment benefit while in employment last year numbered 737. We also have to be careful about other forms of fraud. The hon. Member referred to deserted wives. This is a serious problem, where a wife has been deserted, or an unmarried mother has responsibility for her children. We must see that their needs are met. There is scope for abuse, which we have to watch very carefully. Again, we had to bring a number of prosecutions last year for fictitious desertion and undisclosed cohabitation. There were 580 prosecutions in 1968, partly as a result of the work of the special investigators, who look into suspected cases of fraud.
In 1968, 13,000 cases were investigated by our investigators and of those 6,000 had their allowances terminated or reduced. The interesting point is that it was found that the allegations against the remainder were unfounded. We also have false claims over the counter. The hon. Member for Garston, who has seen something of counter work, knows that some people will try their luck to see if they can get away with it. Often they do not do so because it is proved that

statements they have made have been untrue. In 1968, there were 1,460 prosecutions for false claims made over the counter.
We also have to deal with the failure to pay contributions. This is a form of abuse, and is found particularly, as the hon. Gentleman said, in the building industry, where some people claim to be self-employed when, in fact, they do so simply to avoid paying National Insurance contributions and S.E.T.
It is true that there has been an increase in the number of our investigators. We could do with more, but I would be very averse to our having an army of snoopers to deal with a minority of people who practise fraud or abuse, and having too many people prying into the affairs of others. However, we have to have a certain number of them, and I think that those who urge that the Government should administer public funds responsibly must be aware that if we are to do this there have to be investigators.
I sometimes find some dichotomy among those who, on the one hand, are aware of abuse and, at the same time, and sometimes in the same breath, criticise us when indelicate questions have to be answered. I think that the hon. Member for Garston is one who might be guilty of speaking with two voices on this subject.
The public ought to know what is being done to try to deal with the whole area of abuse, but I think that we ought to advise against the sort of rumour-mongering which is going on at present. Many people are saying, "Oh, yes, I have heard the story of someone living off supplementary benefits", and so on. Some of this rumour-mongering is very unfair to the social security officers who have a difficult and responsible job to do. The implication of some of these rumours is that the officers are being soft, and this is very unfair to them. If members of the public believe that they have evidence that there is a form of abuse in relation to supplementary benefits, they have a responsibility to report it.
I do not think that they have a responsibility to spread unproven stories, but if they have reason to believe that they have some evidence they should report it to the manager of the social security office or to their local advisory


committee or to their Member of Parliament—not just a generalised rumour, but facts which they think should be brought to our attention. If this is done we will examine the evidence. It is wrong that we should act on the basis of a hunch and take arbitrary decisions because they do not like the appearance of some person. We have to be wary not to fall into the danger of being obsessed by the thought of scroungers.
I recognise the tremendous work which is done by the Supplementary Benefits Commission. We should all be proud of its achievements. The degree of great hardship which has been relieved, particularly since the 1966 Act, is something of which I am very proud. They are relieving genuine poverty and hardship. This has resulted in considerable pressure on local offices. We are seeking means of ensuring that queues are shorter and that people have to wait a shorter time, and this has certainly worked. It has meant a great deal of reorganisation of local offices, in improving the buildings, integrating supplementary benefit offices with National Insurance offices, and other internal arrangements to try to cut down the time that people have to wait. This has concerned us very much and I am very anxious, in all the visits to offices that I make, to deal with this aspect.
One method that we are trying to shorten or prevent queues is by experimenting with payment by Giro order instead of by cash over the counter to people who make a claim for an immediate payment. Entitlement to benefit does not entitle them to payment over the counter, and in some offices we are experimenting with a system which means that people do not have to wait so long for a determination to be made. This also discourages people from flitting from office to office hoping that they

can induce someone to make a grant to them.
The last point I want to make concerns morale. I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman said, that morale in the service and among the officers of the Supplementary Benefits Commission is at its lowest. I have been asking this question week after week as I have visited a large number of offices in different parts of the country. It is true that some are aware of pressure of work and some are aware of the need for increased training of our staff. I, too, am aware of this. There was a time when offices were acutely conscious of the pressure of work, particularly following the 1966 legislation with the great build-up of claimants. Today, morale is improving. I believe that the situation that existed six months or a year ago has been greatly improved. I want to end by paying my own tribute, as the hon. Gentleman has done, to the extraordinary work that is done in difficult circumstances, sometimes with difficult people, trying to ensure that those genuinely in need have their needs met and that those who seek to exploit the generous provisions of the State should not get away with it.
Finally, not only am I aware of the concern about abuse and its extent, but I am not satisfied that the situation should stay as it is. There are probably additional measures that need to be taken. We are looking, in the whole field of supplementary benefits and National Insurance, at whether there are any further measures, administrative or otherwise, which can help to deal with a situation which I believe relates only to a small minority of those who receive benefit from the Supplementary Benefits Commission.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at two minutes past Twelve o'clock.